Poll: Bruce Springsteen or Neil Young

That's one thing I admire about Neil. He's humble although he's infinitely better than some he pays homage to.

 

I'm one of those people who could never get into Bruce. You know how I voted.

 

This is a difficult question, I'm not really a fan of either Bruce or Neil as people I listen to often but I respect them both tremendously as artists and as human beings.

 

Neil Young by miles. I like Mr Springsteens songwriting, but his albums have always sounded to me like a highly produced vegas act, even when Born To Run was first released.
He has always seemed to me to be an up tempo Tom Jones.
Neil Young , on the other hand, is the epitome of the rock era example. He is the hippie poster child.
And the guys songwriting abilities are to be envied. I think he is perhaps not just the best rock lyric writer to ever live, he could very well be the greatest bard period to ever have lived just this side of Solomon.

 

This is an interesting poll but I voted for Bruce. I think the actual casual fan outside of a music forum would probably vote for Bruce Springsteen as he is more popular than Neil Young.

 

I never understood why some only like the Pepsi/ junk food Springsteen. I think Born in the USA often sounds like the third disc for The River.

 

I must say that both of your posts on this thread have been enlightening.

 

I doubt that.

 

You doubt that Springsteen is more popular than Young or that they would vote for Springsteen? Seriously? What planet are you living on Scott? All you have to do is look at the album sales.

Now that doesn't necessarily mean Springsteen is better but it does mean that most casual music fans would be more aware of Bruce than Neil. Heck, even my 15 year old knows who Springsteen is (and he prefers rap)and has no idea who Neil Young is. I've tried to enlighten him to both but it's that generatinal divide thing.

 

OK, that's just silly. No doubt that Neil is a terrific lyricist but "best rock lyric writer to ever live" sounds like so much hyperbole.

Tom Jones? Really? When I last checked Tom Jones never recorded anything like "Badlands".

"

 

Maybe it is this forum? Easy to test.

 

I've listened to both for over thirty years,and though in many ways I feel closer kinship to Springsteen ( New Jersey, Italian/Irish-American heritage, similar economic background, Roman Catholic sensibilities), and would place the very "best" of each artist on the same high pedestal, I have to reluctantly admit that if I had to choose one, it would have to be Neil Young. Young is a true original who follows his muse wherever it leads him, even if it leads him straight into a "ditch", as it has on more than one occasion. He'll get an idea, devote time and energy to it, and if he likes the finished product, he'll just put it out there, and let us be the judge--not that he cares what we or the critics say. Springsteen, in contrast, seems tentative. He seems to be a perfectionist, but I think he's just anal retentive. He works with the same people, and one gets the impression that manager Jon Landau has a lot to say about the finished product. And every release follows the same pattern--an announcement that he's "working on a new album" a build up of expectations, a release date, a tour announcement, a round of media events with well-known Springsteen fans such as Brian Williams, Jimmy Fallon and Jon Stewart, inevitable debut at #1 ( followed by chart oblivion within a month), predictable five star reviews in Rolling Stone and The New York Times, followed by fan speculation (wish) of another live box or Tracks II.... Neil can be a pain in the neck at times too (see Archives ), but he's also much more prolific and spontaneous ( who saw Psychedelic Pill or Live at the Cellar Door coming?) and his music is much more satisfying and diverse. You want loud gut-chrunching guitar and endless solos? Laid -back country-rock ballads? Sweet acoustic folk? Occasional detours into R&B, electronica and old-school country? Unexpected collaborations with Pearl Jam, Booker T and the MG's, and others? Well, that's Neil. Again , it doesn't always work but points are scored for going beyond his--and his fans--comfort zones. I really like Springsteen's work overall, but I enjoy the diversity and dependability of Neil Young in all his guises. There's just more there.

 

I've had numerous casual music fans ask me what I see in Springsteen. Neil is more iconic. My kids know more about Neil than they know about Springsteen, so what?

Springsteen's recent album had probably 20 times the promo budget of Neil's. I think there's a pretty fair chance Neil would be more recognizable to the population at large than Springsteen also.

 

Really? I do think that Neil is iconic but MORE iconic? Ok, then.

I kind of doubt that.

 

Best songwriter to ever live, period.

 

Neil actually enjoyed a #1 Billboard Chart Hit, " Heart of Gold." The album it was from, Harvest was the top selling album of 1972.

 

I think this is right. Neil Young seems to simply not to give a damn about the front office. He seems to just do what he wants, and if it sells fine, if not fine.
Bruce Springsteen has got to be one of the most highly promoted recording artists to ever exist. The guy has always had much media attention and a lot of fanfare during album releases. I am thinking when Born To Run was released Columbia put a huge stack of chips on it before they spun the wheel. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that he has had some of the largest advertising budgets ever expended on a pop artist.
I am betting even Barbara Streisand probably envies his promotion department.

 

This was easy for me - Neil Young. For me, his work has stood the test of time much better than Springsteen's.

 

The #1 single is one way Neil has "beaten" Bruce - Bruce never charted higher than #2.

He's sold a lot more albums and concert tickets, though. And "Born in the USA" was the top-selling album of 1985!

 

I remember that quite well but compared to Springsteen's chart reign, that's not much. It's nice but not much and not enough to make most folks under the age of 40 have any idea who he is.

Greetings-#60 but 2 million sold
E Street-#59 but 2 million sold.
Born to Run- #3 on Billboard-6 million copies
Darkness #5-3 million copies
The River, #1-5 million
Nebraska, #3-1 million
Born in the USA-#1-15 million
Tunnel of Love #1-3 million
Human Touch #2-1 million
Lucky Town #3,-1 million
Joad #11-500,000
The Rising #1-2 million
Devils and Dust #1-500,000
Magic#1- 1 million
Working on a Dream #1-500,000

While Neil's biggest seller was 3 million (Harvest).

We aren't, of course, counting Buffalo Springfield, CSN&Y or Stills-Young but, still, nowhere near the exposure, sales and, I would argue, recognition among CASUAL rock fans.

Certainly Neil has been more prolific.

"Heart of Gold" may have gone to #1 (Springsteen's best showing for a single was #2) but, as Colin points out, even when it comes to concert venues Springsteen outsells Neil.

 

This is pretty ironic as America "A Horse with No Name" very Neil Young sounding replaced "Heart of Gold" at the #1 spot on the U.S. pop chart.

 

Neil got a good boost in the 90s when he became "The Godfather of Grunge", and although those "new fans" are now in their 40s, I think he still does care some sort of semi-alternative cache among younger rock fans.

But among the general public? Bruce is much more recognizable/known...

 

Both are great, but Neil speaks to my soul more.

 

Yikes. OK, couldn't disagree more but, OK, to each his own. Lots of songwriters from a variety of eras that argument could be made for.

Lots.