It Was 40 Years Ago Today...

Dear Whatthe, I find your arguments for raising Bruce to rock-and-roll sainthood rather ... meh.

Here's the thing. You are knocking Springsteen for you own personal reasons. You have a right not to like Springsteen and/or his music. But you can't change what is fact. Not because I say so. Because the numbers say so. You belittle his achievements and use other bands that have not come close to achieving what he has. Quite frankly your arguments are BS! I am not a fan of classical music but I would not knock Bach and belittle his achievements just because I find it boring. History and facts(numbers) would prove that I would be wrong. Facts are facts. Springsteen's impact on the music industry is indisputable. And your BS does not change that. The earth is round, the sun is the center of our universe, president Obama is a natural born American citizen, climate change is real and Bruce Springsteen is the leader of Rock and Roll!
On another note I drove 6 hours listening to Springsteen straight through. Most enjoyable. I have you guys to thank for it. After a dry spell you got me to revisit the Boss!
I'm just say'in ✌️

The numbers also say Bieber is a pop wonder. If he stays in the business and continues to sell will you put him up there with Bruce?

Artistic merit versus success is an argument as old as Art itself. So is taste. Though Dylan can be considered to be perhaps the most influential Pop music figure of just about everyone (he certainly is for Bruce, as he was for Lennon), some don't hear why. No amount of discussion will, or necessarily should, change that.

No matter how popular Springsteen has been, how many records he's sold, etc., some don't hear why. Speaking not just for Tostadosunidos (which I wouldn't presume to do), or Art Dudley (who has stated he find's Springsteen's appeal a mystery), Or myself, it is a rather widespread feeling amongst the hard-core music fans I know. Sorry, some just find Bruce to be boring (his songs are SO pedestrian). And, no, it isn't out of some sort of elitist mentality. It's just that different people look for different things in music---nothing wrong with that.

I completely understand why some find, has always found, Dylan unlistenable. Fine with me, suit yourself. He's not for everyone---no one is. I understand that non-musician's don't "get" why The Band are so very, very revered by their peers (Los Lobos, John Hiatt, Buddy Miller, Richard Thompson, Nick Lowe, Lucinda Williams, Emmylou Harris, Neil Young, Van Morrison, many, many others---many of my favorite currently working pro's all acknowledge the Band's deep influence on them). How does the fact that Springsteen has had a much more successful career than they relate to his versus their artistic worth, or how much everyone should like him versus them? The Stones have had an even longer run than Bruce. Does that mean they automatically deserve to be liked? When people here express their dislike, or mere antipathy, for Bruce's music, why must they be expected to "admit" that he is a "leader" in Pop music, and very popular? If one doesn't like hamburgers, is that person expected to defend not liking the perhaps most popular food in the world?!

Bdp24-Great post. I would like to add and simplify, regarding your comments. Dylan and the Beatles created/influenced the singer songwriter genre. The Kinks/Steppenwolf/Blue Cheer helped create "arena rock". The Who/The Doors/The Animals/Pink Floyd were responsible for the alternative/prog rock movement. Some of the bands especially The Who had an influence in all the mentioned genres. Springsteen had top level songwriting ability, then add the arena rock sound which created a very large fan base.