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?!