Mate of mine is a massive Springsteen fanatic - when I say fanatic I mean he really puts his money where his mouth is and spends a fortune travelling back and forth to the US to see Bruce in concert. I convinced him to see P at the O2, arguing that P is THE best live act on the planet and this is somebody he just has to see. Unfortunately he saw one of P's poor "going through the motions" performances, he almost left mid way through the show he felt it was soooo bad and afterwards felt the whole experience reinforced his opinion that Springsteen is undoutably the best live performer around. He and I have really locked horns on this subject now, so I'd be really interested to recieve some compelling arguments/views from you lot out there on why we think P is a better live act than Springsteen.

I know its all subjective, and Springsteen is a legendary performer no doubt about it, but for my money P is so versatile and such a gifted musician that when you consider that and his amazing dancing (maybe not so these days...) and his enormous vocal ability, when he's at the very height of his powers there is simply nobody on the planet that can do what he can do.

I've never seen Springsteen live, nor would I want to. He just doesn't do it for me. I do feel it largely impossible to compare Springsteen with Prince. It reminds me of the age-old comparison of Prince with Michael Jackson. There is no comparison. Springsteen and Prince are completely different performers. They don't even perform the same genre of music. Naturally as I don't even like Springsteen (I don't rate his music nor do I find him sexy or pleasant to look at), then I'd pick Prince every time but that's just my opinion. I'm afraid I can't give any compelling arguments/views to help you convince your friend. I think that at the end of the day he/she likes Springsteen and you like Prince. Each to their own. It's doubtful you'll convince your friend to prefer Prince over Springsteen any more than your friend could convince me that Springsteen is better than Prince!

Wow...cool topic, being that my three fave artists of all time are Prince, Madonna and Springsteen.

It is tough to compare the two, they offer totally different shows live, both equally awesome though. As artists they offer such a range of music...for the non-Springsteen fans on here, consider this. When you think of Bruce you'll probably just think of Born In The USA; you're missing out on so much more though. Its like someone who doesn't know Prince coming up to you and saying all they know of him is 1999...think how much they are missing out on! The same can be said of Springsteen, he has such a range of music that most people will never know about.

Both great song writers and both great performers (on a side note I think its criminal that Bruce isn't in the UK Music Hall Of Fame yet....even Bon Jovi got in ahead of him!)

Around the time of the 1999 tour, I had a roomate that was a big Bruce fan. I took him to Prince in Orlando and he took me to Bruce in Jersey. Prince was an arena show with The Time kicking his ass-Bruce was in a small bar at the shore. For those shows, Bruce won easily. Bruce was at home, and the place was crazy.

Since then I have seen Prince in similar settings and I think with all things equal Prince is easily superior. Better musician, better songs, better band, much better female counterparts. They both can give uninspired shows, but I never miss the chance to see them and experience some magic.

And how about Prince is sex-on-legs and Bruce Springsteen isn't

DoMeBaby69 said:

I really can't comment on that!

I guess it depends on whether you like the highly polished appeal of Prince, or the rough 'n' ready appeal of the Boss.

DaveT said:

Hmmmm, I'm not even sure it comes down to that. I love a bit of rough n ready just as much as I like highly polished but I think that Prince oozes sex appeal and Bruce doesn't. But then it does come down to personal choice at the end of the day in the same way as musical tastes.

I totally agree that people think of "born in the u.s.a" because I did up until a year ago, since then I have really got into his stuff, born to run and darkness on the edge of town are absolute classics! I saw Bruce live last year and thought he was incredible, I would say his show might have been better than a couple of the o2 shows I saw but P's aftershows were unbeatable. Prince is still the best.. Springsteen is an anti-star, working class hero type where as Prince goes for the coolest of cools, untouchable, mysterious thing. I do suggest buying "Born to Run" now and listen to it 15-20 times and suddenly you "get it"... I now have about 8 Springsteen records, 1 year down the line, hope he does an aftershow at the o2, unlikely

aiden said:

Would love to see the Boss live myself...trying to get hold of a ticket to the O2 show later in the year. Born To Run is a certified classic to...Jungleland is one of the best songs I've ever heard. The Clarence sax solo is so moving!

nellie3121 said:

I think what they have in coming is that with their concerts they give what the real fans want.In total, looking at performance, singing, band, entertainment I would say Prince is the best but then - I am not objective having loved Prince's music for about 27 years now. But in the end I think it's not important who people consider the best, but that the fans love the music and that artists connect with the fans. Michael Jackson might have sold more records than Prince but he most certainly doesn't appreciate his fans as he should.

aiden said:

I agree about the aftershow thing. I saw 4 of them at the o2 and they were simply breathtaking. If only my mate could have seen one of them to appreciate P's genius he may have begun to see my point of view. I've watched some recent Springsteen in concert on YouTube and if your into your fist-punching-the-air rock'n'roll then I can see the appeal. He written some corkers in his time as well, so theres no denying his songwriting prowess, but as a live performer I just can't see how Springsteen can ever `out-perform' Prince.

I saw Springsteen at Sheffield United with a friend who is a massive fan in 1998. I didn't like Springsteen.It was on the agreement that he would come to the Lovesexy tour in the same year. He didn't like Prince. We were both totally converted at each others gigs and have forever felt smug that our two favourite musicians also happened to be unparraleled live. Two completely different styles of performance and music but both undoubtabely geniuses.

They are both amazing live.

I took my son to see the Boss and told him he needed to see what it looked like when men played rock 'n roll.

I'd have to give the overall nod to Prince, but I consider myself fortunate to have seen both performers live many times.

I'll be back on this thread once I've seen The Boss at the O2 - it'll be interesting comparing how they both handle the venue.

RodeoSchro said:

This is a very interesting thread 2 me.
I've seen Bruce twice and seen Prince 7 times.
Prince is better, the best in fact, but Bruce is also awesome.
I think it depends on the circumstances, the venue, backing band etc.
For instance, Prince live in Jersey concert '04 was better than Prince live in Connecticut '04, likely because Jersey is closer 2 New York and CT sucks.
Bruce, on the other hand, rocks Jersey beyond belief at Giants Stadium due 2 it being 'his hometown', but at Rentschler Field in Connecticut, still an awesome show but way less crowd participation. Plus, factor in that Bruce never changes his E St. Band, and Prince's band now is a constant revolving door.
Prince & the Revolution was the best band ever, hands down! MSG Aug.2, 1986
Let's continue this thread, awesome!

FrankieDJ

nellie3121 said:

5th attempt!!!!

as I am fed up of constantly not getting my reply to this thread/post completed, I will keep it brief:

Prince

keep this thread going, it is the most mind boggling i have seen here at .org