Ultimate Battles: Bruce Springsteen vs. Bob Dylan

I am currently listening to the Boss's exclusive acoustic recording of 'Long Time Coming'. He plays it upstairs in a dull and dusty house, and talks a little bit between songs.

i'm excited about this thread getting ugly.

So you believe in creationism?

major xpost: why the fuck do musicians have to look like theyre having fun? U2 may suck, but it aint cuz of that.

Seriously, I've never understood the appeal of The Boss. Sure, he can write - Nebraska and Darkness on the Edge of Town alone prove that. But why the fuck does he feel the need to put a synthesizer or a goddam saxophone on every goddam song? Ick. Bad, bad BAD production from 1980-on. And I hate 'working class' schtick - dude has been a millionaire for a quarter century, at least - go buy a clean T shirt, dickwad.

Dylan by several dozen light years, people. I mean, don't be ridiculous.

("Johnny 99" rules though)

(a) the bigger peak moment (that unfathomable string of mid-'60s albums)
(b) the looser sound of his records
(c) the aura of mystery (as opposed to springsteen's aura of there's a large pole lodged in my ass)
(d) the sheer quantity of good-to-great output (in 30-plus years, springsteen has recorded exactly as many studio albums as dylan had recorded by 1974)
(e) the sheer longevity (he's still going at it for crissakes)

But again, y'know, fuck'em both. Springsteen at least likes the Ramones and Suicide, so he gets points there.

i'd say both are putting out more-than-credible new music that's not as good as the music they made at their peak. and given a choice between springsteen's last two albums and dylan's last two albums, i'd take dylan's, in a heartbeat.

Fuck no, (2001's) Love And Theft is the best thing Dylan's done for years - and is infintely better than anything Springsteen ever has ever done or is ever likely to do!

I prefer synthed-up Bruce to the '70s stuff. I'll take Born in the USA and Tunnel of Love over Darkness On The Edge of Town, Nebraska, or Born To Run.

[salutes]

stewart OTM..love and theft rules....kills the rising.

I'll give you Alan Vega -- he is an annoying vocalist (but, y'know, that's kinda part of their whole shtick). I don't think Jaz is an annoying vocalist at all.

Vega's annoying because he's TRYING to be annoying. Dylan's just annoying being he simply IS annoying.

(x-post)

Alex is tempting the Tautology Police Squad.

For me, Bruce's music just gives me something more than Dylan's does; there's a certain release in BS's stuff that requires a complete surrender, a total concession of authenticity and awareness of time and place for three and a half minutes. Springsteen is not cool...sax solos and the glockenspiel are not cool. But why do I yell my lungs out during "Jungleland" or "Born to Run" or "The Promised Land"? Some people (a lot of people) think it's hokey, lame, not worth it, what have you.....they prefer Dylan because the genius in the lyrics provides the release, and with the exceptions of "Like a Rolling Stone" and "A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall" (which do both) I find this to be true. But with Springsteen there's a drama being played out underneath the story that's almost operatic in nature....it gets my heart going, I'm excited, I want to pump my fist in the air. With Dylan I'm intent on the lyrics and in awe of a poet....in Springsteen I find a poet and a hero.

Dylan is not a "poet" any more than Springsteen is. Dylan is a funny, absurd, sometimes mystifying lyricist, but hardly a poet; like all good lyrics they're signfiers.

I admit I'm not as heavily into Dylan as Springsteen (I own everything BS ever did and have seen him 3 times), but I do own most of Dylan's main albums and have seen him once. Above I talked about Dylan's lyrics because that's what I find most striking about him.....his voice isn't as bad as people say (though I don't always enjoy it)....but I think as popular musicians go he's about as close to a poet that you can get. But it's never been little nuances in his lyrics that have attracted me to him....it's always a deft lyrical shift, funny/absurd images, etc. With Springsteen I do find poetry underlying his romantic/heroic/tragic stories (I'm talking about his later work here), but in a much more nuanced, affecting way from Dylan (I just spent the last week going through his Songs book of lyrics). Here's an example from one of his Nebraska-esque story songs (it's on The River):

"I met a little girl and I settled down
In a little house out on the edge of town
We got married, and swore we'd never part
Then little by little we drifted from each other's heart

At first I thought it was just restlessness
That would fade as time went by and our love grew deep
In the end it was something more I guess
That tore us apart and made us weep

And I'm driving a stolen car
Down on Eldridge Avenue
Each night I wait to get caught
But I never do

She asked if I remembered the letters I wrote
When our love was young and bold
She said last night she read those letters
And they made her feel one hundred years old

And I'm driving a stolen car
On a pitch black night
And I'm telling myself I'm gonna be alright
But I ride by night and I travel in fear
That in this darkness I will disappear"

(There's no accompaniment other than acoustic guitar and slight synth)

There's a restraint there that is missing in what I know of Dylan's songs.

the only real battle of the songwriters is
Dylan vs Neil

and either one wins.

none have matched what they have done. lock thread. kthxbye

oh and hi zack

Talk about damning with faint praise!

Why, if you'd just gone on to say "as a lyricist he stands on a level with Bryan Adams", you could have buried him completely!

why?

This battle isn't that much of an Ultimate Battle.

I pick Dylan though.

And in only 2 lines.

Interesting grouping: Springsteen for me manages to combine the very worst elements of The Clash (a tendency for self-conscious, over-earnest, self-righteous, overly-simplistic, preaching and posturing) with the very worst elements of U2 (smugness, brashness, arrogance, over-confidence, complacency).

Only without the tunes.

i really like dylan and neil young, but i also like ryan adams and conor oberst *gasp*, kinda for the same reasons youre describing. while i completely agree that the fathers in this situation are much more monumental or influential or just plain "better", i always kinda felt like Bright Eyes spoke for a certain side of me, and i find heartbreaker by RA personally superior to blood on the tracks.

yet, pass me the burbon, and put on sweetheart of the rodeo

Huh?

JD, I speak in solidarity with you as one of the few on this board who are willing to stick up for Ryan Adams: this is crazy-talk.

i mean, i dont know how to explain it, ive listened to both of these records thousands of times (says much about me), but i do think i prefer heartbreaker

Dylan wins.

Dylan still wins, though.

They are definitely opposite ends of a spectrum to me. Dylan was intellectual; Springsteen was heartfelt. Postmodern vs. romantic. Holier than thou vs. Cult of personality.

Structurally, I'd still go with Springsteen. I don't think Dylan pushed boundaries so much as updated folk for the '60s and '70s. Springsteen didn't push boundaries either. He nearly did the same damn thing as Dylan, but, on the whole, Springsteen's music is more complex and interesting than Dylan's with more of a soul influence than Dylan. Here, though, I will agree with Springsteen that that opening to "Like A Rolling Stone" is "like somebody had kicked open the door to your mind". Dylan has had a much greater influence on music, in an "art for art's sake" context. He's one of the giants that subsequent musicians stood on the shoulders of, including Springsteen, but Springsteen saw the art as a means to non-artistic end; Dylan's end-all be-all was the art itself.

I defend Dylan to everyone I know who thinks of him as outdated and affectless, and am willing to rhapsodize ecstatic about the man and his music, but juxtaposed with Springsteen, he lacks heart and soul.

while i agree that talking about dylan as if his lyrics are the only (or even most) important thing about him is misleading, i think it's a bit unfair to say dylan ISN'T a poet at all, full stop. as poetry, "desolation row" is certainly better than anything allen ginsberg wrote post-"kaddish."

This is true, but then Ginsberg post-"Kaddish" defines seems the very definition of Panthera tigris papyrus. Spoiled by early success and notoriety, he spent the majority of his career playing the role of Allen Ginsberg, Radical Poet and singing Blake, accompanying himself on harmonium. Great fun, but not poetry.

Ginsberg's papertigritude notwithstanding, reading Dylan's lyrics as poetry = dud. But there's no question that he drew consciously from the verse tradition in exploring how much can be expressed through abstraction, allusion, and extended metaphor. "Desolation Row" an excellent example.

Springsteen seems to work much more in the tradition of the short story. Concrete detail in the verses illustrating general principles in the chorus, and a remarkable talent for the unexpected turn:

Well I saw her standing
On her front porch,
Just twirling her baton
Me and her went
For a ride sir...

...well gosh'n'golly, ain't that sweet? The heartland tableau, the simple pleasures of small-town romance, the distinctly American joy of being young in a young world, with the open road and all of its potential spread out ahead...

...and ten innocent people died.

That, people, is what you call a volta. And a very direct lesson in how you, too, can illustrate the dark underbelly of the American experience or the domestic scene in one easy verse. Or at least he makes it look easy.

And I ain't gonna try to choose between the W.B. Yeats and the Raymond Carver of the pop scene. How 'bout Dylan 1963-1975, Springsteen 1975-1987?

Hook, line and sinker, huh?