Bruce Springsteen is the most overrated artist in rock history.

[Wayne LaFoy]

I believe Bruce Springsteen is the most overrated artist in rock history & his fans, his critics adulation is pathetic. Born To Run is one of the most overrated classic rock albums of all time. Abbey Road, Sticky Fingers, Led Zeppelin IV, Who's Next, Paranoid, Toys In The Attic, Destroyer & Fair Warning are way above it. The Boss doesn't deserve the accolades at all, as a songwriter or a performer, since Mick Jagger & Pete Townshend could blow him off the stage anytime. I will say one good thing about him, his live album 1975-1985 is great, but he's not & never was the second coming of Dylan. The way the media portrays him, you would think he started the rock & roll genre, which is laughable.

[Dr.J.Jones]

I think The Beatles, U2 & Bon Jovi are more overrated.

[Bluesman Mark]

So do I, especially the Beatles. One reason they got so much great press was that the then nascent rock journalists came about at roughly the same time as that psychedelic sludge-fest "Sgt Pepper's Only Darts, (oops Lonely Hearts), Club Band" was unleashed on the public. Since other than John Lennon's comments on christianity, (which as an atheist & anti-theist I agree with 100%), the precious Beatles could do no wrong, this piece of English music hall drivel & pretentious crap got called an instant "classic". Nothing profound about it, just schtick, with what scant artistic merit being George Martin's production & willingness to experiment with the studio.

As for great songwriting, why the Beatles early work was just chock "full" of that, not!!! "I Wanna Hold Your Hand", "She Loves You", & "Love Me Do" are great songs!?! For who pray tell, preschoolers!?!

It wasn't until the Kinks, the Who & especially the Rolling Stones came about that we began to get great bands from the UK. I will give the Beatles credit for opening the door for real artists from there.

I will give some small props to a touch of their later work, but even that was better served in cover versions, such as Wilson Pickett's definitive version of "Hey Jude", with the great Duane Allman on guitar, or Ray Charles taking ownership of "Yesterday" from them with his great rendition. I also like a bit of John Lennon's solo work, in small doses. Paul solo? Treacle, practically nothing but smary treacle, which is still better than George Harrison's pretentious & overly pious, (nobody intelligent cared about the Maharashni George, & your music reflected how debilitating his influence was on you), solo crap or Ringo's pathetic attempt at a solo career. That was sad, not just that someone that really couldn't sing & was a barely adequate drummer, (& according to session ace & jazz great Bernard "Pretty" Purdie, Ringo wasn't even adequate, for Purdie maintains they had him overdub Ringo's "sub par" drum parts on every Beatles album before they were released in the US), at best had a solo career, but that the "great unwashed public" even sustained his solo career for as long as they did. There really is a sucker born every minute & no accounting for taste, judging from Ringo's solo sucess.

BTW, I'd rather hear one note from Bruce, (& even that played badly & out of tune), than the entire Beatles catalog, & while I like Springsteen a lot, he barely makes my Top Ten list of great R&R artists, if he actually does in fact.

Bon Jovi I simply refuse to discuss, as there is nothing there worthy of discussion.

[Ed Allen]

Mark, your stupidity is showing again. To understand The Beatles and their contributions, you need to understand the landscape when they came on the scene and as they evolved. Failure to do so means you are making broad comments based on a modern perception and oddly enough, that perception is what it is because of The Beatles. Discounting innovative genius is one thing, short-shrifting musical prowess is another. On both scores, you fail miserably. The songwriting was masterful, the musicianship other worldly. It's true that nothing new has been said or done in the rock genre since The Beatles came and went.
It must gall you that they still sell so well. Tens of millions of morons who don't pay a great deal of attention to you or the blather of Mr.Purdie.

[Bluesman Mark]

Actually no, as I'm 48 & grew up on them, I just discovered there was a whole lot more & better music out there than the vastly overrated "Fab" Four.

BTW, as my IQ is 175, (genius is 140 & up), please refrain from referring to me as stupid. You really do not wish to get into a battle of wits with me little man, & I did not personally attack you or anyone else here. Do try to keep that in mind.

Believe me, music has moved & grown far, far beyond what they contributed, & again as far as masterful songwriting, how are "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" or "She Loves You" masterful? That's merely teenybopper music, much as like David Cassidy & others of that ilk. Other worldly musicianship!?! Please lay off the LSD. The only one of the four to even be more than average in musical skills was Paul. If you really want me to give you a list of, oh say 100-200 vastly superior musicians, (& this just in the rock world), by various instruments, I'll certainly be glad to oblige you.

If they hadn't had the combination of Brian Epstein to market them, George Martin to produuce them & help them to realize their ideas, & the then nascent genre of rock journalism to fawn over them, they likely wouldn't have gotten much past Europe.

As to whatever they sell galling me, not in the least. As PT Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute.", & basing talent on sales means that you must consider Britney Spears & Garth Brooks to be the musical equals of the Beatles. Overrated though I may consider them, even I will give the Beatles more credit than that. You might want to reconsider your criteria for greatness. Also, I'm basing my comments on the music, not the cultural impact, & the Beatles fall far short musically.

[Bluesman Mark]

Also, as far as a "modern perception", music is my main passion, & I not only have somewhere in the neighborhood of over 15,000 CD's, (don't ask how many albums I had, suffice to say I still have over 10,000 of those, & I reduced my collection by over half many years ago), music has been my main passion for well over 30 years, & I have read countless books on music, from R&R history & perspective, to musical theory & songwriting.

I bring to my comments 30+ years of perception, knowledge & research into music as music, not as cultural iconography.

[Gordon Williams]

To Bluesman Mark and Ed Allen,

The greatest thing about music (and there are plenty) is that...NO ONE IS RIGHT, AND NO ONE IS WRONG.

Music...either you like it or you dont...but whatever your tastes are, we can all have our opinions, our likes, our dis-likes, and have enjoyable discussions about it all, WITHOUT having to start slinging insults.

I think Mr. Allen probably got a little upset at someone bashing The Beatles...honestly, when I read Bluesmans first post, I got a little hot under the collar as well. I love The Beatles, and was listening to them at 5 years old. Quite a few of my very earliest memories actually involve The Beatles, as well.

But, sorry Mr. Allen, its not right to call someone stupid because they dont like the music you like. Bluesman Mark, your IQ...no matter how high it may be, does not make your musical opinion RIGHT, and someone elses WRONG! Your high IQ does not mean your opinion is anything other than that...YOUR opinion!

For me, The Beatles were awesome, and still are. Bruce Springsteen? Never liked him much. I honestly cannot debate the intelligence of his lyrical writing prowess, or not. But I can say I never personally thought he was a very good singer, and I've never seen him or heard him do anything on the guitar that I thought was impressive. Having said that, I would never disrespect him, or his fans, as individuals.

Bottom line...you dont like it, you dont have to listen to it! And thats a beautiful thing, is it not? Your personal freedom of choice about music is a right that should never be taken away from anyone. Can you imagine living a life where your decision to listen to a certain artist (or not listen, for that matter) is ever taken away? Now THAT, to me...the right to rock to whoever you choose, is a right worth dying for.

[RJhog]

I disagree somewhat. I don't think he is necessarily the "most" overrated, although he is probably somewhat overrated. I actually like a lot of his songs, but I only own his greatest hits cd. I personally think someone like Bob Dylan is more overrated. I will admit that I'm saying this even though I don't own one single song by Bob Dylan. The thing is, nothing he has ever done that I have heard has ever made me want to hear anything else by him. I know he wrote All Along The Watchtower, but other than that, I don't think he can sing and his music that I have heard doesn't really sound like rock and roll to me. At least Bruce Springsteen's music that I know makes me want to hear some of his older stuff. I think he is mostly overrated regarding his newer stuff.

[THE GREEK]

I AGREE!!!

[Jon]

I agree about Springsteen. It seems that if he put out an album of just static, the "critics" would be fawning over it, calling it the greatest album, possibly EVER. I also don't get why some think he's a great guitarist, maybe I'm missing something since I try to tune him out whenever a song of his pops up on the radio.

[Isaac]

I agree that the critics give him to much praise especially on his last to albums which arent that good but have some good songs. I like a lot of his work like Nebraska, The River, Darkness on the Edge of Town, The Ghost of Tom Joad, Devils and Dust. Born to Run is a solid album and I enjoy it when I listen to it every now and again. But to me Born in the USA is more overated as an album to me its not that good.

[Glenn Marcoux]

Couldn't disagree more!! He will be remembered (and rightfully so) as one of the premier song writer's and live performers of his time. And as far as saying that U2 and the Beatles are overrated.....gimme a break folks!

[Wayne LaFoy]

I've been a dedicated Beatles fan for a long time & I'm proud my bias shows. Springsteen gets way too much praise, for his latest album, just as much as for his classic ones. His death will probably overshadow, that of Paul McCartney & Eric Clapton sadly, when it comes to his fans & the media. Bruce Springsteen is the most overrated artist in rock history with U2 following close behind.