-

He is one of them.

It would be pretty arrogant to state that.

-

I've seen many many live shows in my life, ànd many Prince concerts.

Don't underestimate James Brown... Little richard, Ike & Tina Turner, Queen, Beyoncé,

And don't tell me that being able to play many instruments is needed to be a great live performer.

Performing live is indeed unbelievable when it comes to Prince on instruments and dancing and singing and all...

But many other artists had their share in great live performance too.

Artha Franklyn for one, is live unbelievable !

Stevie Wonder shows are stunning! Unforgettable ! etc

-

I didn't see Bruce Springsteen but saw all the others (well... no Elvis), and I think that I must put James Brown perhaps just the little tad up.
MJ didn't do so much to me cause i dislike choreography and that's all he is about.
Bowie was majestic, but just below Prince imo.
Freddie... well yeah, I guess he's on top.
Outsider: Manu Chao in his Mano Negra years!!

[Edited 4/12/19 9:33am]

skywalker said:

homesquid said:

Absolutely not.

Better than Prince:

1. Freddie Mercury

2. Michael Jackson

3. Bruce Springsteen

1. Freddie: Not a good dancer. Not as athletic as Prince. Dabbled in guitar, but left the heavy lifting to Brian May.

-

2. MJ: Couldn't play instruments live. STuck to the same dance routines for decades. Lip Synced WAAAAAY to much.

-

3. Bruce: He's got the stamina, the crowd control, and is a marathon man. That said. He didn't move/dance for shit. His voice has got two gears. You've seen one Springsteen show, you've seen them all.

Bruce in the 70s was all over the stage, as this clip of him performing Rosalita in 1978 will attest: https://youtu.be/jlsBJxH1CWg

As for his moves, he never professed to be a dancer. Rock musicians are just that - musicians. None are really known for having dance moves, per se. Even Mick Jagger's so called "moves" are kinda silly. So to chide Bruce for lacking a quality which isn't necessary in his chosen profession kinda misses the point. That said, the guy has energy to burn (especially in the 1970s and 80s), and his shows are STILL marathon affairs.

Case in point, the two back-to-back shows I saw him give at MetLife Stadium in August 2016. Closing in at 67 years of age, Bruce performed for four hours both nights and played 21 different songs at the second show (actually, his third of that stand), including playing nothing but stuff from his first two albums (and two covers) for the first 90 minutes. It was like going into a time machine back to 1973! "You've seen one Springsteen show, you've seen them all"?? Not hardly! The man is famous for throwing setlists out the window and mixing things up on a nightly basis as these two shows can attest. Bruce is the ONLY person in my book who is/was better a live performer than Prince, and those two (Bruce + Prince) stand rather far above the pack from anyone else IMHO.

My God I cannot stand Springsteeen. I think I am the only one in my age group to think that..

homesquid said:

Absolutely not.

Better than Prince:

1. Freddie Mercury

2. Michael Jackson

3. Bruce Springsteen

vandeluca said:

My God I cannot stand Springsteeen. I think I am the only one in my age group to think that..

homesquid said:

Absolutely not.

Better than Prince:

1. Freddie Mercury

2. Michael Jackson

3. Bruce Springsteen

i am the biggest bruce fan here, but not because of his live show, i've only seen him once, I love his music.

He's up there for sure, especially the aftershows. They had a spark, an energy, a level of intimacy and an improvisational feel that the live shows I saw never captured where P and the band just JAMMED.

Also, I took my 8 year old son to see KISS friday night and, say what you want about the band, they put on a monster of a live show. A few others I've seen that might rival him are Elton john in 1976, KISS in 1980 as I mentioned, Pink Floyd, GWAR, Buckethead, Janes Addiction 1990 and the Red Hot Chilli Peppers circa 1988 and Widespread Panic jut last year all for different reasons. Rush is amazing live. The Stones don't fuck around either but can be on or off on any given night. If you catch them on an up night they're amazing.

For pure musicianship, sound and varying styles I think Musicology was the best I've ever seen Prince and I've NEVER seen a live act that covered SO MANY different things and styles; dance, stage show, funk, rock, ballads, acoustic, pop, jazz, choreography...Prince could do it ALL but a person's mileage may vary depending on what they like.

One thing I always hated...HATED...that Prince would do in his shows is these long, meandering synth/spacey stuff, weird spoken word montages and just long drawn out soliloquies that I assume were meant for costume changes. I'm looking at you, Lovesexy Tour.

Oh, and the medleys. MY GOD the medleys.

Used to drive me insane and not in a good way. Im not a HUGE fan of a hit heavy set list since I'm tired of most of those songs but Prince would get the crowd GOING with a popular track and then just...stop and move on to another. Then he'd do it AGAIN. I've seen/felt it take the wind out of the crowd, full stop. Fuck the medleys. Except for Musicology acoustic set. Those medleys were great.

Conversesly, sometimes he'd extend a jam for WAAAAY too long, run it into the ground and wear out the track while tiring the audience. Purple Rain tour did this a lot. I'm down for a 20 minute extended funk jam but when it didn't click it was kind of monontanous and you'd wish he'd get on with it.

[Edited 4/14/19 10:11am]

I don't know if feel like the idea of best live performer that is kind of a subjective viewpoint. But he wasc definitely up there with the greatest.

He was a bit derritive to be the GOAT - at least in my opinion. He put on a hell of a show though, and I was never disappointed when I saw him (and neither were my friends who I invariably dragged along).

[Edited 4/15/19 19:13pm]

Genesia said:

Of all time? I don't know - I hear Beethoven was pretty great.

Yes, this is the thing – it all depends on context and how we subjectively measure “a great performer”. John Coltrane live would have been something special, as would Miles Davis in spite of the fact that he spent half of his time with his back to the audience. The greatest live musician I ever saw is probably Hermeto Pascoal.

But if you mean a performer in the Funk/Rock/James Brown/Jimi Hendrix tradition, I’d say yes – Prince was probably the best to ever do it. No one mastered so many facets of the art and to such a high level. Add to that the fact that he was a ceaselessly interesting creative genius, and I can’t see how the likes of Freddie Mercury, Bruce Springsteen and MJ even come close (the latter really was just a song and dance man in my view).

I agree with those who mention Parliament-Funkadelic – I’ve been obsessing over their 70s shows and my God they were brilliant. But of course, P-Funk was literally an army of talent.

[Edited 4/16/19 20:21pm]

fen said:

Genesia said:

Of all time? I don't know - I hear Beethoven was pretty great.

Yes, this is the thing – it all depends on context and how we subjectively measure “a great performer”. John Coltrane live would have been something special, as would Miles Davis in spite of the fact that he spent half of his time with his back to the audience. The greatest live musician I ever saw is probably Hermeto Pascoal.

But if you mean a performer in the Funk/Rock/James Brown/Jimi Hendrix tradition, I’d say yes – Prince was probably the best to ever do it. No one mastered so many facets of the art and to such a high level. Add to that the fact that he was a ceaselessly interesting creative genius, and I can’t see how the likes of Freddie Mercury, Bruce Springsteen and MJ even come close (the later really was just a song and dance man in my view).

I agree with those who mention Parliament-Funkadelic – I’ve been obsessing over their 70s shows and my God they were brilliant. But of course, P-Funk was literally an army of talent.

.
Oh man, I'm glad to see someone hear even knows true greats like Hermeto Pascoal here – I'm so tired of (and at the same time: amused) reading about the likes of Springsteen, Presley, Jackson, Mercury etc being called geniuses, LOL

Kares said:

fen said:

Yes, this is the thing – it all depends on context and how we subjectively measure “a great performer”. John Coltrane live would have been something special, as would Miles Davis in spite of the fact that he spent half of his time with his back to the audience. The greatest live musician I ever saw is probably Hermeto Pascoal.

But if you mean a performer in the Funk/Rock/James Brown/Jimi Hendrix tradition, I’d say yes – Prince was probably the best to ever do it. No one mastered so many facets of the art and to such a high level. Add to that the fact that he was a ceaselessly interesting creative genius, and I can’t see how the likes of Freddie Mercury, Bruce Springsteen and MJ even come close (the later really was just a song and dance man in my view).

I agree with those who mention Parliament-Funkadelic – I’ve been obsessing over their 70s shows and my God they were brilliant. But of course, P-Funk was literally an army of talent.

.
Oh man, I'm glad to see someone hear even knows true greats like Hermeto Pascoal here – I'm so tired of (and at the same time: amused) reading about the likes of Springsteen, Presley, Jackson, Mercury etc being called geniuses, LOL

I saw him years ago at the Barbican and his opening piano piece (which he wrote that day specifically for the show) was one of the most extraordinary musical experiences of my life - it was like witnessing some kind of beautiful higher mathematics unfolding.

herb4 said:

I like the way this thread has grown since I last logged on. For me, the P family is at the top--Prince, Parliament (the whole Parliafunkadelicment Thang) and Pink Floyd. I saw James once but not in his prime. Same for Chuck Berry. Both were "over the hill" when I saw them but they were still impressive. I've always been impressed by Jagger's stamina on stage. The guy never stops.

Grog said:

I like the way this thread has grown since I last logged on. For me, the P family is at the top--Prince, Parliament (the whole Parliafunkadelicment Thang) and Pink Floyd. I saw James once but not in his prime. Same for Chuck Berry. Both were "over the hill" when I saw them but they were still impressive. I've always been impressed by Jagger's stamina on stage. The guy never stops.

Yeah it's kind of refreshing to see a thread with different perspectives that (for the most part) didn't degenerate into a stupid flame war. Even though we tried.

dave1dmarx said:

skywalker said:

1. Freddie: Not a good dancer. Not as athletic as Prince. Dabbled in guitar, but left the heavy lifting to Brian May.

-

2. MJ: Couldn't play instruments live. STuck to the same dance routines for decades. Lip Synced WAAAAAY to much.

-

3. Bruce: He's got the stamina, the crowd control, and is a marathon man. That said. He didn't move/dance for shit. His voice has got two gears. You've seen one Springsteen show, you've seen them all.

Bruce in the 70s was all over the stage, as this clip of him performing Rosalita in 1978 will attest: https://youtu.be/jlsBJxH1CWg

As for his moves, he never professed to be a dancer. Rock musicians are just that - musicians. None are really known for having dance moves, per se. Even Mick Jagger's so called "moves" are kinda silly. So to chide Bruce for lacking a quality which isn't necessary in his chosen profession kinda misses the point. That said, the guy has energy to burn (especially in the 1970s and 80s), and his shows are STILL marathon affairs.

Case in point, the two back-to-back shows I saw him give at MetLife Stadium in August 2016. Closing in at 67 years of age, Bruce performed for four hours both nights and played 21 different songs at the second show (actually, his third of that stand), including playing nothing but stuff from his first two albums (and two covers) for the first 90 minutes. It was like going into a time machine back to 1973! "You've seen one Springsteen show, you've seen them all"?? Not hardly! The man is famous for throwing setlists out the window and mixing things up on a nightly basis as these two shows can attest. Bruce is the ONLY person in my book who is/was better a live performer than Prince, and those two (Bruce + Prince) stand rather far above the pack from anyone else IMHO.

You're right about no two Bruce shows being the same, Dave.

And don't forget - for about 10 years now, a large part of the show's midsection has been the sign portion.

Every single show, fans hold up song request signs. And they don't have to be Springsteen songs, either. Bruce selects 5 or 10 or even more signs and plays whatever strikes his mood.

So yeah - they aren't all the same by any means!

ya, and they do damn good on their feet like that too, they've always been a legendary group.

RodeoSchro said:

dave1dmarx said:

Bruce in the 70s was all over the stage, as this clip of him performing Rosalita in 1978 will attest: https://youtu.be/jlsBJxH1CWg

As for his moves, he never professed to be a dancer. Rock musicians are just that - musicians. None are really known for having dance moves, per se. Even Mick Jagger's so called "moves" are kinda silly. So to chide Bruce for lacking a quality which isn't necessary in his chosen profession kinda misses the point. That said, the guy has energy to burn (especially in the 1970s and 80s), and his shows are STILL marathon affairs.

Case in point, the two back-to-back shows I saw him give at MetLife Stadium in August 2016. Closing in at 67 years of age, Bruce performed for four hours both nights and played 21 different songs at the second show (actually, his third of that stand), including playing nothing but stuff from his first two albums (and two covers) for the first 90 minutes. It was like going into a time machine back to 1973! "You've seen one Springsteen show, you've seen them all"?? Not hardly! The man is famous for throwing setlists out the window and mixing things up on a nightly basis as these two shows can attest. Bruce is the ONLY person in my book who is/was better a live performer than Prince, and those two (Bruce + Prince) stand rather far above the pack from anyone else IMHO.

You're right about no two Bruce shows being the same, Dave.

And don't forget - for about 10 years now, a large part of the show's midsection has been the sign portion.

Every single show, fans hold up song request signs. And they don't have to be Springsteen songs, either. Bruce selects 5 or 10 or even more signs and plays whatever strikes his mood.

So yeah - they aren't all the same by any means!

fen said:

Kares said:

.
Oh man, I'm glad to see someone hear even knows true greats like Hermeto Pascoal here – I'm so tired of (and at the same time: amused) reading about the likes of Springsteen, Presley, Jackson, Mercury etc being called geniuses, LOL

I saw him years ago at the Barbican and his opening piano piece (which he wrote that day specifically for the show) was one of the most extraordinary musical experiences of my life - it was like witnessing some kind of beautiful higher mathematics unfolding.

never heard of the guy, part of being a genius is communicating with the folk. always has been, mozart and beethoven wouldn't be remembered if their music didn't translate. and what is genius? is he a genius player? so what, a zillion of those, is he a genius lyric writer? a genius composer? a genius entertainer? too many facets for most people to cover adequately, which is what made prince unique, was he the best? he was up there and I'll leave it at that.

Put me down again as one of those stubborn dudes who never really got the Michael comparisons and who still never grasps why the comparison comes up so often. To me, the only thing they had in common was being effeminate black males who both just so happened to strike hot lightning at the same time, got popular and could dance. I never found thier styles all that similar (for the most part), save a few things, and to this day still think it does a diservice to both of them to see them constantly compared and eternally grouped together in so many people's minds. Prince was a musician first and foremost and OOZED sexuality. Michael was almost childlike and asexual. Neither "Dangerous" nor "Bad"

I never saw MJ or the Jackson 5 live so, in some ways, I'm talking out of my ass but I did see thier TV performances and never quite got the rock solid "slotting" and rigid, insistent comparisons that most did and some still do now. I think they were rather radically different and, if we keep insisting on a "rival" and think that Bruce Springsteen is a far more apt comparsion.

Hear me out.

Both were incredibly "pushed", young wonderkins - amazingly hyped by record lables and marketing - and who, in the summer of 1984, battled for chart supremacy as "the next big thing". Both were singularly commited and devoted to thier art, wary of selling out, and who followed up thier biggest selling albums that left fans and followers somewhat baffled in a way that weeded out the fair weather types and the chattle. Both eschewed publicity, hated the trappings of fame and popularity and, more often than not, found their message minsunderstood and co-opted. See "Born in the USA", the adoption of it as an American Anthem by the conservative right and Bruce's refusal to do interviews and shying away from the spotlight.

I don't even like Bruce Springsteen but I think his career trajectory, the dedication of his fan base, his cementation as a live performer, his song writing, his longevity and his dedication to MUSIC invites as many comparisons as Michael Jackson does. Michael was born a money making stage prop, never really made a life of his own, was never in control of anything he did and was beholden to choreography, song writing and producers in a way Prince never was. Prince could pick up a guitar, grab a mic and take over a room without a stage show. He wrote music every day.

I never found them all that similar (PRince and MJ) beyond the look and the timing of it all

[Edited 4/22/19 15:44pm]

as a huge bruce fan, i don't think he was in his prime at that point, he was also popular almost exclusively to white people, there was no mixing of races at his concerts or rather very little. There were no issues of overt sexuality, no real controversy either. Born In the Usa was his pop album and was a natural counterbalance to the michael/Prince/Black takeover of popular music. That wasn't even his best album, Born to Run and my favorite, darkness, are and even after, I like a couple albums more. A solid pop album, not his best, not his worst and nothing revolutionary, in fact, bruce, by that point was a traditionalist, he brought nothing new by that point. Prince and Michael and co. brought a lot new on the musical, imagery and video fronts. I'm huge fans of all three and consider myself lucky as a musician to have those guys, lionel, ttd, as the current influenences for me when i was young. Only better time for me would have been in the 50's.

When I go Bruce live, I go Hammersmith '75. Plus, he did have a cool look at that time. Very hipster, indie cool vibe goin on...

PeteSilas said:

as a huge bruce fan, i don't think he was in his prime at that point, he was also popular almost exclusively to white people, there was no mixing of races at his concerts or rather very little. There were no issues of overt sexuality, no real controversy either. Born In the Usa was his pop album and was a natural counterbalance to the michael/Prince/Black takeover of popular music. That wasn't even his best album, Born to Run and my favorite, darkness, are and even after, I like a couple albums more. A solid pop album, not his best, not his worst and nothing revolutionary, in fact, bruce, by that point was a traditionalist, he brought nothing new by that point. Prince and Michael and co. brought a lot new on the musical, imagery and video fronts. I'm huge fans of all three and consider myself lucky as a musician to have those guys, lionel, ttd, as the current influenences for me when i was young. Only better time for me would have been in the 50's.

Good points all around and things that I think validate my post to some degree in as much as Prince and MJ were lumped together in large part due to race and that the 1984 Springsteen acheivement, as comparable as it was at the time to Prince and as much as their career trajectories moving forward, the lens through which they're viewed is largely separated by race. Much like Born in the USA, I don't think Prince's best work was Purple Rain but I can see the argument and that was thier pinnacle. Blue collar white folks adored Bruce and his denim/bandanna thing.

Bruce circa 1984, as well as the things he did for decades, jive much closer to Prince than MJ, IMO.

Shit, Prince got lumped in with Madonna more than he did with Springsteen based on nothing more than the raw sexuality of their performances and personas, much in the same way he was compared to Jackson in ways more centered around mascara and dance moves than anything they were doing musically. Dudes looking for the new breed leader and who weren't scared of sex or androgeny liked Prince, the girls loved Madonna and the conservatives liked Bruce. Felt that way to me anyway.


I'd argue that Madonna has more in common with MJ than Prince does and that Prince has more in common with Springsteen than either of them.

To tie it back into ways that relate to the thread, Prince and Bruce cemented their live legacies over decades and, more, were songwriters and musicans first, perfomers second. Madonna and MJ were primarily about the stage show. Then again, Madonna had the movies going the same way Prince did and, as far as I know, niether Bruce nor MJ ever had the cinematic cross over and nobody thinks of Madonna as a "must see" live act in any way.

I dunno. I'm rambling. good post though.

herb4 said:

Put me down again as one of those stubborn dudes who never really got the Michael comparisons and who still never grasps why the comparison comes up so often. To me, the only thing they had in common was being effeminate black males who both just so happened to strike hot lightning at the same time, got popular and could dance. I never found thier styles all that similar (for the most part), save a few things, and to this day still think it does a diservice to both of them to see them constantly compared and eternally grouped together in so many people's minds. Prince was a musician first and foremost and OOZED sexuality. Michael was almost childlike and asexual. Neither "Dangerous" nor "Bad"

I never saw MJ or the Jackson 5 live so, in some ways, I'm talking out of my ass but I did see thier TV performances and never quite got the rock solid "slotting" and rigid, insistent comparisons that most did and some still do now. I think they were rather radically different and, if we keep insisting on a "rival" and think that Bruce Springsteen is a far more apt comparsion.

Hear me out.

Both were incredibly "pushed", young wonderkins - amazingly hyped by record lables and marketing - and who, in the summer of 1984, battled for chart supremacy as "the next big thing". Both were singularly commited and devoted to thier art, wary of selling out, and who followed up thier biggest selling albums that left fans and followers somewhat baffled in a way that weeded out the fair weather types and the chattle. Both eschewed publicity, hated the trappings of fame and popularity and, more often than not, found their message minsunderstood and co-opted. See "Born in the USA", the adoption of it as an American Anthem by the conservative right and Bruce's refusal to do interviews and shying away from the spotlight.

I don't even like Bruce Springsteen but I think his career trajectory, the dedication of his fan base, his cementation as a live performer, his song writing, his longevity and his dedication to MUSIC invites as many comparisons as Michael Jackson does. Michael was born a money making stage prop, never really made a life of his own, was never in control of anything he did and was beholden to choreography, song writing and producers in a way Prince never was. Prince could pick up a guitar, grab a mic and take over a room without a stage show. He wrote music every day.

I never found them all that similar (PRince and MJ) beyond the look and the timing of it all

[Edited 4/22/19 15:44pm]

If we're talking about personality and background, than yeah, Prince & MJ couldn't be more different. They were two very different men with very different motivations.

But musically? Yeah, the comparison makes sense. Both were pigeon holed as R&B singers in the 70s and emmerged as superstars in the 80s (with Michael always having more commercial success than Prince, with the exception of 84-85) by combining rock and pop in the post-Disco landscape. Both capitalized on the rise of MTV and broke race barriors. I can pick songs Prince did that sound like MJ or the Jacksons (Cool, Mountains) and vice versa (Superfly Sister, In The Closet).

The comparison to Bruce Springsteen is strange (no offense ) and falls flat since The Boss and MJ didn't make remotely similar music and had incredibly disimilar backgrounds as well. I guess you're saying they both have dedicated fanbases? Well, so do a lot of artists (Beyonce, Kiss, The Beatles, etc. etc.) And when it comes to live performances, well, Michael was pretty much done as a live act after 1998 and he didn't tour nearly as much as Bruce (nor did he enjoy it like Bruce either).

[Edited 4/22/19 17:20pm]

funkyrake said:

The absolute best.

herb4 said:

PeteSilas said:

as a huge bruce fan, i don't think he was in his prime at that point, he was also popular almost exclusively to white people, there was no mixing of races at his concerts or rather very little. There were no issues of overt sexuality, no real controversy either. Born In the Usa was his pop album and was a natural counterbalance to the michael/Prince/Black takeover of popular music. That wasn't even his best album, Born to Run and my favorite, darkness, are and even after, I like a couple albums more. A solid pop album, not his best, not his worst and nothing revolutionary, in fact, bruce, by that point was a traditionalist, he brought nothing new by that point. Prince and Michael and co. brought a lot new on the musical, imagery and video fronts. I'm huge fans of all three and consider myself lucky as a musician to have those guys, lionel, ttd, as the current influenences for me when i was young. Only better time for me would have been in the 50's.

Good points all around and things that I think validate my post to some degree in as much as Prince and MJ were lumped together in large part due to race and that the 1984 Springsteen acheivement, as comparable as it was at the time to Prince and as much as their career trajectories moving forward, the lens through which they're viewed is largely separated by race. Much like Born in the USA, I don't think Prince's best work was Purple Rain but I can see the argument and that was thier pinnacle. Blue collar white folks adored Bruce and his denim/bandanna thing.

Bruce circa 1984, as well as the things he did for decades, jive much closer to Prince than MJ, IMO.

Shit, Prince got lumped in with Madonna more than he did with Springsteen based on nothing more than the raw sexuality of their performances and personas, much in the same way he was compared to Jackson in ways more centered around mascara and dance moves than anything they were doing musically. Dudes looking for the new breed leader and who weren't scared of sex or androgeny liked Prince, the girls loved Madonna and the conservatives liked Bruce. Felt that way to me anyway.


I'd argue that Madonna has more in common with MJ than Prince does and that Prince has more in common with Springsteen than either of them.

To tie it back into ways that relate to the thread, Prince and Bruce cemented their live legacies over decades and, more, were songwriters and musicans first, perfomers second. Madonna and MJ were primarily about the stage show. Then again, Madonna had the movies going the same way Prince did and, as far as I know, niether Bruce nor MJ ever had the cinematic cross over and nobody thinks of Madonna as a "must see" live act in any way.

I dunno. I'm rambling. good post though.

ya, i could see that but music wise? there's not a lot of comparison. both men have stayed active and continued to put out work whether it sold great or not. Both guys were committed craftsmen who played instruments, both were the figurehead of their music, mj was a piece of qj's vision in the early days, which worked, but ya, he was controlled more than either prince or bruce, he was also from a back ground where good people would help him, meaning, good musicians, producers were there, songwriters were there, prince and bruce were primarily solo visionaries. In fact, QJ has said you can't make a great album alone and the personell on thriller was pretty big compared to prince and bruce, and they were also had bigger reputations.

skywalker said:

homesquid said:

Absolutely not.

Better than Prince:

1. Freddie Mercury

2. Michael Jackson

3. Bruce Springsteen

1. Freddie: Not a good dancer. Not as athletic as Prince. Dabbled in guitar, but left the heavy lifting to Brian May.

-

2. MJ: Couldn't play instruments live. STuck to the same dance routines for decades. Lip Synced WAAAAAY to much.

-

3. Bruce: He's got the stamina, the crowd control, and is a marathon man. That said. He didn't move/dance for shit. His voice has got two gears. You've seen one Springsteen show, you've seen them all.

I'll give you the first points you made on Bruce, but that last comment shows a staggering lack of knowledge on Bruce's tours and live shows over the years!

Mikado said:

herb4 said:

Put me down again as one of those stubborn dudes who never really got the Michael comparisons and who still never grasps why the comparison comes up so often. To me, the only thing they had in common was being effeminate black males who both just so happened to strike hot lightning at the same time, got popular and could dance. I never found thier styles all that similar (for the most part), save a few things, and to this day still think it does a diservice to both of them to see them constantly compared and eternally grouped together in so many people's minds. Prince was a musician first and foremost and OOZED sexuality. Michael was almost childlike and asexual. Neither "Dangerous" nor "Bad"

I never saw MJ or the Jackson 5 live so, in some ways, I'm talking out of my ass but I did see thier TV performances and never quite got the rock solid "slotting" and rigid, insistent comparisons that most did and some still do now. I think they were rather radically different and, if we keep insisting on a "rival" and think that Bruce Springsteen is a far more apt comparsion.

Hear me out.

Both were incredibly "pushed", young wonderkins - amazingly hyped by record lables and marketing - and who, in the summer of 1984, battled for chart supremacy as "the next big thing". Both were singularly commited and devoted to thier art, wary of selling out, and who followed up thier biggest selling albums that left fans and followers somewhat baffled in a way that weeded out the fair weather types and the chattle. Both eschewed publicity, hated the trappings of fame and popularity and, more often than not, found their message minsunderstood and co-opted. See "Born in the USA", the adoption of it as an American Anthem by the conservative right and Bruce's refusal to do interviews and shying away from the spotlight.

I don't even like Bruce Springsteen but I think his career trajectory, the dedication of his fan base, his cementation as a live performer, his song writing, his longevity and his dedication to MUSIC invites as many comparisons as Michael Jackson does. Michael was born a money making stage prop, never really made a life of his own, was never in control of anything he did and was beholden to choreography, song writing and producers in a way Prince never was. Prince could pick up a guitar, grab a mic and take over a room without a stage show. He wrote music every day.

I never found them all that similar (PRince and MJ) beyond the look and the timing of it all

[Edited 4/22/19 15:44pm]

If we're talking about personality and background, than yeah, Prince & MJ couldn't be more different. They were two very different men with very different motivations.

But musically? Yeah, the comparison makes sense. Both were pigeon holed as R&B singers in the 70s and emmerged as superstars in the 80s (with Michael always having more commercial success than Prince, with the exception of 84-85) by combining rock and pop in the post-Disco landscape. Both capitalized on the rise of MTV and broke race barriors. I can pick songs Prince did that sound like MJ or the Jacksons (Cool, Mountains) and vice versa (Superfly Sister, In The Closet).

The comparison to Bruce Springsteen is strange (no offense ) and falls flat since The Boss and MJ didn't make remotely similar music and had incredibly disimilar backgrounds as well. I guess you're saying they both have dedicated fanbases? Well, so do a lot of artists (Beyonce, Kiss, The Beatles, etc. etc.) And when it comes to live performances, well, Michael was pretty much done as a live act after 1998 and he didn't tour nearly as much as Bruce (nor did he enjoy it like Bruce either).

[Edited 4/22/19 17:20pm]

I was speaking more about thier career trajectories, artistic decisions and abilities as song writers.

PeteSilas said:

as a huge bruce fan, i don't think he was in his prime at that point, he was also popular almost exclusively to white people, there was no mixing of races at his concerts or rather very little.

That could be said about rock music in general. I'm black & I grew up mostly around black folks and remember some of them would call rock n roll "white boy music" especially at school. The majority of my relatives either listened to R&B, gospel, blues, or hip hop. Some had jazz records. I remember a few of my adult relatives had Kenny Rogers, Dolly Parton, Barbara Mandrell, & Charlie Rich records. Not many had rock records, and then it was kind of more the R&Bish style like Doobie Brothers, Steely Dan, Ambrosia, Rare Earth, Rod Stewart, Steve Miller Band, Toto, Eagles, 1980s Genesis, Pablo Cruise, Elton John, Dr. John, Linda Ronstadt, and so on. They had those artists, but none even had Jimi Hendrix.