BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN vs MICHAEL JACKSON

[Shallow]

Keep in mind I want the complete package to be judged, not just who the better dancer is, or how much you think the "thriller" video changed the world. Judge them both on all merits. Which are:

Singles
Albums
Artistry
Creativity
Music
Lyric
Live Performances
Musicianship
Videos

[Trauma-san]

Singles - MIchael's had dozens of good singles since he was a child.  He easily wins.
Albums - Michael's had 4 nearly perfect albums (off the wall/Thriller/Bad/Dangerous), and 3 more good albums with several great songs.  It's hard to argue he doesn't have better albums, especially when Thriller and Bad are respectively the greatest and one of the greatest selling albums of all time.  A world of Millions obviously agrees.
Artistry - Michael Draws.  LOL He wins.
Creativity - Bruce plays guitar.  Michael establishes the groove in most of his songs through his mouth.  They build tracks around what he vocalizes the beat to be, that's creative as shit.
Music - Bruce has a few good songs, Michael has dozens of great songs.  Easily the winner.
Lyric - While Bruce's shit may be what you prefer, it's hard to argue his lyrics are better than

"And the Dream We Were Conceived in Will reveal a Joyfull Face/
And the World we once believed in will shine again in Grace/
Then Why Do We Keep Strangling Life/
Wound This Earth, Crucify It's Soul/
When It's Plain To See This World Is Heavenly?/
Be God's Glow"

Live Performances - Michael is widely considered the greatest performer of all time.  It's no surprise that anybody would say he's better live than Bruce.

Musicianship.  Michael plays piano, drums, bass, and guitar.  He also builds most of his tracks from the ground up with music he creates with unique objects, or with his mouth.  He's one of the world's greatest beat-boxers, I'd say he's much more musical than Bruce.

Videos - Michaels are the greatest videos of all time, as voted, and as widely regarded by nearly everyone who's asked their opinion.  


Michael wins hands down, all categories.  

[KURUPTION-81]

gotta agree

[Shallow]

Singles - MIchael's had dozens of good singles since he was a child.  He easily wins.
Albums - Michael's had 4 nearly perfect albums (off the wall/Thriller/Bad/Dangerous), and 3 more good albums with several great songs.  It's hard to argue he doesn't have better albums, especially when Thriller and Bad are respectively the greatest and one of the greatest selling albums of all time.  A world of Millions obviously agrees.
Artistry - Michael Draws.  LOL He wins.
Creativity - Bruce plays guitar.  Michael establishes the groove in most of his songs through his mouth.  They build tracks around what he vocalizes the beat to be, that's creative as shit.
Music - Bruce has a few good songs, Michael has dozens of great songs.  Easily the winner.
Lyric - While Bruce's shit may be what you prefer, it's hard to argue his lyrics are better than

"And the Dream We Were Conceived in Will reveal a Joyfull Face/
And the World we once believed in will shine again in Grace/
Then Why Do We Keep Strangling Life/
Wound This Earth, Crucify It's Soul/
When It's Plain To See This World Is Heavenly?/
Be God's Glow"

Live Performances - Michael is widely considered the greatest performer of all time.  It's no surprise that anybody would say he's better live than Bruce.

Musicianship.  Michael plays piano, drums, bass, and guitar.  He also builds most of his tracks from the ground up with music he creates with unique objects, or with his mouth.  He's one of the world's greatest beat-boxers, I'd say he's much more musical than Bruce.

Videos - Michaels are the greatest videos of all time, as voted, and as widely regarded by nearly everyone who's asked their opinion.  


Michael wins hands down, all categories.  

well you really weren't meant for these times, i'm not quite sure what times you were meant for. first off how much do you know about Bruce?

now my breakdown, the way i see it. (remember that no one can be right or wrong, since it is strictly opinion)

singles- the jackson five shit doesn't count. they weren't michaels songs, he didn't write them, nor did any of his brothers. but even if you do count them bruce wins. blinded by the light not only helped him, but also gave areal shot in the arm of manfred mans career. born to run became a cult smash and lead for his picture to be on the cover of time and newsweek in the same week. the river was phenominal. born in the usa was sheer genius. tunnel of love and brilliant disguise were almost as good. streets of philadelphia won a fucking oscar, and secret garden potrayed the essence of the love hate relationship of jerrry maguire. and thats just to name a few.

albums- michael? 4 near perfect? near "perfect"? you are insane. off the wall was very good for a disco album, but thats it. thriller was very commercial and beautifully marketed, but good album at best. bad was the exact same album with worse songs, and dangerous sucked, the second half was okay the the garbage in the beginning ruins it.
BRUCE HAD VERY GOOD ALBUMS IN 73 AND 74, AND THEN  HAD SIX ABSOLUTE CLASSICS BETWEEN 75-87, EACH ALBUM STRAYING AWAY OR IMPROVING ON THE LAST ONE.

artistry- michael only tries proven methids he takes what is established and runs with, and runs too far and too long, thats why he is not around anymore, he was finished way before both trials, and lives off of nostalgia (like Hulk Hogan) Bruce tries to expand and broaden his art with every outing.

creativity- bruce can also play every instrument you jack ass, saying he only plays guitar shows me you don't know too much about him. he also produces his albums, and writes just about every instrument. the second jackson left quincy he became the king of mediocre, the only thing that even attempted to save dangerous was Slash of GnR.

Music- music means music, like notes, song means singing, look it up. bruce springsteen has composed some very very good peices of music to accompany his songs, while jackson a catchy at times they dwell on being over repetitve, smooth criminal seems like it goes on forever.

lyric- thats not even a contest, jackson occasionally hits a lyric or two that contain both poetry and intellect. BRUCE DOES IT COSISTANTLY, WITH VERY FEW SONGS ABOUT PRETTY MUCH NOTHING OR NO MEANING WHAT SO EVER.

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW THE REASON BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN WAS no2 on this years highest payed musicians, tours. Springsteen was built off of live performances. Jackson is very vey good entertainer and dancer but fails to put on a compelling show worth the money. Bruce stays on for like 4 hours, and it never gets stale, proven by the fact that he makes more money with every tour. the only reason he wasn't no1 this year was because the stones charge like 3 times what bruce charges and only made like 4 million more dollars.

Bottom line is Bruce is one of the best ever, check the reviews and the RIAA, him and jackson are neck and neck, in US sales, (world wide numbers are never accurate) Any one that has really listened to all of Springsteen would laugh at the idea of comparing him to michael jackson. Its like comparing Tupac to Nelly or MC Hammer, one is hard core soul, the other is a good entertainer with catchy tunes who can sell records.

[Trauma-san]

Sorry, I didn't read that after the personal diss in the first line.  Bottom line: Anybody, everybody, will agree Michael is better except Bruce, his band, and his groupies.  What instrument do you play?  

[Don Breezio]

hey shallow...i have a couple questions for you:

1) when are you gonna quit riding springsteens dick...wrong board for that buddy

2) when are you gonna stop making yourself look like an idiot by doing comparison's that you should be ashamed of even thinking of? r. kelly vs. springsteen? you idiot its two different types of music! springsteen vs. mj? MJ IS THE MAN (even if he does touch little boys)

[Trauma-san]

off the wall was very good for a disco album, but thats it. thriller was very commercial and beautifully marketed, but good album at best. bad was the exact same album with worse songs, and dangerous sucked, the second half was okay the the garbage in the beginning ruins it.

I'll bet 95% of the board would disagree with your assesment of all 4 albums.  

Off the Wall - Great
Thriller - Nearly Perfect
Bad - Nearly Perfect
Dangerous - even closer to perfect

[W-Side]

Any one that has really listened to all of Springsteen would laugh at the idea of comparing him to michael jackson. Its like comparing Tupac to Nelly or MC Hammer, one is hard core soul, the other is a good entertainer with catchy tunes who can sell records.

you probably meant Nelly and Hammer are superior to Pac right?

..why am i even responding..

[Shallow]

There is a reason why Rolling Stone magazine fan poll ranked Micael Jackson the worst artist of 1983, because he was so over rated it was ridiculous. I don't think Bruce is bar none the best, I think he's better than Jackson. For example, I think Bob Dylan, the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Who and others all rank higher than springsteen. I chose Bruce for comparison because he is a solo artist who combines many different aspects of music. And I strongly believe he is on a higher level than Jackson when it comes to creating music. The type of person who thinks MJ is better than Bruce would probably say  Brian Wilson is better than Bob Dylan.

The problem is I'm arguing with rap fans who think Mj is god, also most of you were probably little kids when MJ was hot and that nostalgia effects your jugdement.

Most of you guys probably think Jackson was more influential than Elvis.

[Shallow]

Any one that has really listened to all of Springsteen would laugh at the idea of comparing him to michael jackson. Its like comparing Tupac to Nelly or MC Hammer, one is hard core soul, the other is a good entertainer with catchy tunes who can sell records.

you probably meant Nelly and Hammer are superior to Pac right?

..why am i even responding..

Other way around kid. If you have listened to Springsteen thoroughly you would realize this.

[Shallow]

off the wall was very good for a disco album, but thats it. thriller was very commercial and beautifully marketed, but good album at best. bad was the exact same album with worse songs, and dangerous sucked, the second half was okay the the garbage in the beginning ruins it.

I'll bet 95% of the board would disagree with your assesment of all 4 albums.  

Off the Wall - Great
Thriller - Nearly Perfect
Bad - Nearly Perfect
Dangerous - even closer to perfect

If so then I'll bet 95% of the board are idiots that don't know what a good "album" is. Let me guess MJ's dangerous is better thab Pink Floyd's "The Wall" right?

[Shallow]

hey shallow...i have a couple questions for you:

1) when are you gonna quit riding springsteens dick...wrong board for that buddy

2) when are you gonna stop making yourself look like an idiot by doing comparison's that you should be ashamed of even thinking of? r. kelly vs. springsteen? you idiot its two different types of music! springsteen vs. mj? MJ IS THE MAN (even if he does touch little boys)

1) Never.

2) Like Billy Joel said in a song "it's still rock n roll to me" what this line means is since the 50s revolution the sounds have changed but the essence has remained the same. R Kelly and Bruce aren't as different as you think Bruce may be more rock and folk based, but many of songs could qualify as gritty RnB, the Pointer Sisters had a smash hit with "Fire".

As far as MJ goes I'll talk about it like this; Let's take pro wrestling, in the eighties there was Hulk Hogan, and there was Ric Flair. Anyone under the age of 13 hated flair and idolized Hogan. The children often wondered why all there older brothers and their freinds loved flair so much. Flair was hands down the best at what he did, Hogan was just more popular. Now Hogan is an icon but if you were to sit him down and ask who was better he would say Flair, and Flair would have to agree.

Now the 80s also had MJ and Springsteen and the same rules apply (except change the number 13 to 17).
 I would almost guarantee ( i can never say for sure) that if Jackson were asked in an interview who was better he or Springsteen, he would say Bruce, and Bruce would definately agree. I remember when 87 hit and both artists had their follow ups to their previous albums ( Thriller 26 platinum, Born in the USA 15 platinum). MJ tried the exact same formula and failed, Bad only went like 6 platinum, and it probably cost almost as much to make the album, also the album was completely torn to pieces by all critics over the age of 9. Now Springsteen released Tunnel of Love, an album he claimed would not and could sell like Born in the USA did, and nor would he try to make it sell like that.  But, Springsteen had something to say, just like all the times, and released an album that explored the turmoil of newly wed life, now the album may have only went 3 platinum, but since it cost next to dirt to create Bruce made more money of it than MJ did off Bad (discounting the tour). Michael Jackson struck gold with the fans only once in his career and milked it for 10 years.

Billy Jean was good but Beat It made the album sell, look at the week bt week sales and you'll see this also. And AC/DC had just had a Smash with you shook me all night long, which made Back in Black just behind Thriller right now in world wide sales, and I'll bet it will pass it. Also Michael borrowed from my man Freddy Mercury and queen when it came to vocal presentation, at times there voices were near identical, which makes me wonder why Queen was damn near black balled during the 80s in America, maybe alittle backstage politics to keep MJ on top, worse things have happened in the music industry. Now I don't mean to down play Jackson by assuming he stloe his style, every one is influenced by people, I am merely trying to explain the reason he sold so much once and never again. The type of music he was releasing was extra hot in the early eighties and MJ could not realize it would not stay that way. Which is also why Nirvana sent his ass packing in 91-92, and Bruce still makes the top ten music acts every year he drops something.

[Don Breezio]

i stopped reading after number 2...it gets really annoying to read your arguements when all of them are essays

[The Ghost When I Zone Off]

Listen, Shallow; I know youre mad that Michael Jackson is better than Bruce Springsteen, but that doesent mean we don't know what a "good album" is. Who the fuck are you to really judge what good music is anyways? Music is just sounds tweaked to a person's liking. The hip hop community doesent need you to get all emotional and shit cuz your old folk rock got shut down and Michael won, so just take a Midol or whatever you need to do and accept that maybe your music judgement isn't superior to everybody elses. Boo fuckin hoo.

[Shallow]

Listen, Shallow; I know youre mad that Michael Jackson is better than Bruce Springsteen, but that doesent mean we don't know what a "good album" is. Who the fuck are you to really judge what good music is anyways? Music is just sounds tweaked to a person's liking. The hip hop community doesent need you to get all emotional and shit cuz your old folk rock got shut down and Michael won, so just take a Midol or whatever you need to do and accept that maybe your music judgement isn't superior to everybody elses. Boo fuckin hoo.

I apologize if my tone comes across as nagging. I agree with 100% that music is completely subjective. Michael Jackson won? On what basis. Bruce makes and has more money than Michael Jackson. Why should I be mad, Bruce was the 1 money making act in America last year thanks to his comeback album The Rising. Jacksons comeback didn't even land him in the top 50 acouple years ago. Also this has nothing to do with genre Michael Jackson is RnB with rock elements, so is Stevie Wonder, and I would never say Stevie is worse than Bruce, he's not better, but he's not worse.