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.

[Rael]

Well I totally agree with the fact "Born To Run" is an album far too much overrated, but not the artist himself. In fact the album has only two really great songs -Tenth Avenue Freezeout, pure funky Van Morrison-like song, and of course Jungleland an epic rock'n'roll song, very strong emotionally speaking..But the rest of it? Meeting Across the River is quiet catchy but Backstreets, She's the One ,Night, Born to Run and Thunder Road are hmmm how to say it....CHAOTIC. Yes Real Chaos in terms of sound! I mean the songs are good compositions but produced like shit, like if it was a punk band or something, and I don't think it was intended by Bruce to be like this..I even heard an interview with one of the E-Street Band member who said that when Springsteen first heard the album he threw it into the garbage saying it was "trash" and wanted to stop the printing...There is another fact about the musicians - all of them are ok but the drummer , my God, i think it s one of the worst drumming in the seventies i ever heard (exept for Tenth Avenue Freeze-Out), total lack of tempo and hardly audible, creating even much more chaos in the sound...It's even more hard to accept when you compare it to the two much underrated previous albums, it s like heaven and hell... Vinnie "Mad Dog" Lopez was a very very good drummer, one of the best i would say end surely the best with whom springsteen been working, Max Weinberg is a total amateur when comparing to Lopez. Roy Bittan is a good piano player ,highly praised by other artists (Peter Gabriel, Dire Straits..) but i prefer far more the previous one - mr. David Sanscious ( check the New York City Serenade piano intro..pure delice)...

Born To Run was the first Springsteen album i heard and was highly disapointed by its sound..I'm not talking here 'bout the lyrics , i know there 're great, but we're speaking about rock'n'roll so good lyrics are not enough to satisfy me...Well if i can give you an advice check his best three albums "Greetings From Asbury Park, N.J." first effort from 1973 , a very very good one, with strong musicians, strong compositions and a simplier production that makes this album 100 times better than "Born To Run". Then Check the second album " The wild, The innocent & the E-Street Shuffle" from 1974, same crew of great musicians (in particular , Lopez and Sancious...), same great compositions....and the third one would be "Darkness On The Edge of Town" the fourth album from 1978, same crew that on Born to Run, but here the production is ,well, normal... and the compositions are simplier but stronger too, no weak track, all relied by something common (rough rock and the lyrics)that makes this album sounds coherent...

Give the Boss a second chance ;-)

[Ed Allen]

As I've gotten older, I've come to some realizations about music. The Beatles changed the world, not just musically but culturally. Simply put, none of us would be who we are now without their contributions. "Overrated"? You have to take into account what came before them and what was there as they evolved. No doubt, they go down as THE musical act of this genre. For me, nothing new has been said or done since the inception of The Beatles, The Who, The Stones, The Kinks and Zep. I'm not a fan of all of those acts, but credit needs to be given.
I've come to understand that for me, only Beatle songs--pre and post break up--have any significance now.
Say this about Dylan and Springsteen: what most people don't like are the singing styles of each. But both continue to be great writers. Both have a finger on the pulse of our society. I'm not a big fan of either, but I could never call them overrated.

[josh arseneau]

If you like Bruce Springsteen then he's not overrated. Even though the song 'Born in the USA' grates on me with it's annoying repetition, I think it's kind of pointless to say who's overrated. There are scores of artists that the world loves but do nothing for me (Rolling Stones). So maybe the only true measure is popularity over the long term. The songs of the Beatles still hold up over time. There are individual songs that will maybe survive 500 years from now (Adagio for Strings, Stardust, As time goes by, Happy Birthday) but I think the only artists from the 20th century that will survive and be known 500 years from now are the Beatles, Aaron Copeland, Rogers and Hart, and Gershwin. Not Dylan (they won't understand his greatness because they won't understand the context). Not Duke Ellington (his greatness is almost forgotten now). Elvis will be a footnote of a cultural icon but the music won't last. Although 500 years from now maybe Elvis will be a religion. If you talk to up coming generations you will understand that they don't even know your favorite bands from the 70's and 80's. Two or three more generations and almost all music from the 70's, 80's and 90's will be forgotten. Music has gone down the road of fragmentation and no single song will ever be as popular as single songs have been in the past. The next musical genius will be smothered in a world with "Too much information". Didn't Duran Duran sing about that?.

[Gordon Williams]

Good post, Josh. You give an opening to start a whole new discussion...meaning, your comment about future generations not knowing old bands. And I do disagree with you, just a little, on that. I think you are largely right, but, if kids grow up hearing the music their parents are playing...in the home, the car, etc., then they may well grow fond of this old music, and "keep it alive", so to speak.

My own son would be an example of this...he was into country, and rap, actually, at a young age. But in hearing some of the music I listen too, he became a fan as well. Specifically, he likes Kiss, Aerosmith, Van Halen, and Ozzy...and he listens to the stuff they released BEFORE he was born. And, surprisingly to me, he has come to love The Beatles, just like his old man does.

Of course, you mentioned The Beatles as one of the few artists whose music you feel will remain "timeless", and I think you are correct. But, I just think some music from the 70's and 80's, will still be played and known, just by being "passed down" from parents to children.