Xamonas Chegwé wrote:The worst of it is not that he is actually bad, but that he is massively overrated. His fans hold him up alongside Dylan as a songwriter. Which is bollocks - he's simply not in that league. He's just very very average.
I'm not sure who is claiming Springsteen is a genius, but neither would I say he's very average. I think there's quite a bit of substance to his work.
Springsteen is one of those artists who I have a lot of respect for, while not really finding his work to my taste. Some of it I love, some of it makes me cringe, and most of it I'm indifferent to. But I do think he's a talented fellow. Also, he's one of the few pop artists who actually sing about
something.
Dylan, on the other hand. Now there is an example of someone who is, to me, inexplicably elevated to godhood. His lyrics are meaningful, yes. But songs are supposed to
sound good, aren't they? I mean, otherwise, why sing them at all? Just write poetry instead.
People think "queue" is just "q" followed by 4 silent letters.
But those letters are not silent.
They're just waiting their turn.
Springsteen is a much better songwriter than Dylan, I like Dylan, but if anyone is over rated its Bob, not Bruce. Phil Ochs is better than both though. Most importantly, Bruce continues to put out great albums, Dylan hasn't made anything listenable since the fucking 70's.
