I have Bruce Springsteen, the Live album.. 3cd's, from 1985.

It's not that good, imo.

Prince in the 1980's, his bands were brilliant.

but these days: Prince's live albums aren't that good either,

ONA live (yuck!)
Indigo Nights, (more yuck!)

but to answer the question, live Prince is usually fierce, the Musicology band, was really great, the 2007 NPG not so good/ just ok,

I have no idea about Bruce's bands these days.

But a little strange to compare a Prince funk band with rock..

And in the Prince section also. Bruce bores the hell out of me but the thread would be more fair to Bruce over in the Music: Non-Prince section which has a lot less fams.

where's that picture of prince with the boss?

RodeoSchro said:

Bruce nails them because they are basically all the same! There is a big difference between being a great bar band and doing what Prince does.

I once saw a Prince concert start out with an incredible funk jam session where he did triple splits and multiple microphone tricks. He then slid 25 feet to the piano where he played some incredible gospel jazz-based chords. He proceeded to climb on top of the piano and play some amazing and inspired rock lead guitar. He jumped off the piano in high heels into another split and concluded the song with a sexual tease toward the women (men?) in the front row. And this was just the first fifteen minutes of the concert.

When it comes to innovation, musical diversity and daring, raw sexuality, intriguing danger and risk taking in a live setting, band tightness- Prince has had no peers. Bruce would admit that P is in a league of his own.

There is nothing like a Prince concert. The energy and diversity of the crowd (Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, Straight, Gay, all ages, demographics, and cultural groups), just like the complexity of the man, creates a unique and absorbing experience.

http://s11.bdbphotos.com/...huawxg.jpg

looks like the battle lies elsewhere

Though I'm sure Bruce is hot locally, I just could never get past the "Born in the USA."

Bohemian67 said:

Which means you haven't listened to the lyrics.

Honestly, all of you are just proving my point from earlier this thread: You haven't listened to much Bruce, you haven't seen him live and you don't know what you're talking about. He is every bit the masterful live performer as Prince (and his recorded output this decade stomps all over the stuff Prince has put out).

I can appreciate that this is a seriously up hill battle here though, so I'll just say this: My life is richer for listening to both, and I'm glad I don't have to choose between them.

Yeah I'm sorry. I just don't like the wild wild west and cowboys. And that was my first impression of the man. It's got nothing to do with him, it's just not my culture. I didn't say he doesn't perform well or sing great lyrics, because I don't know, I've never listened to him.

TwiliteKid said:

I'll bite.
I've tried 2 listen 2 Bruce but I rather watch grass grow.

2 different types of music.

Bruce plays with passion, no doubt, and the band is tight. Bruce engages the audience.

Prince just blows his audience away with his musicianship. Prince has a sense of humor. Prince can dance, although he doesn't do that much anymore
Prince can rock. Prince can funk. Prince can Blues. Prince can jazz.

I can't even believe this question is asked. A great bar band that made the big time vs. a total musical polymath, genius, complex performer, arranger, composer and daring musician who transforms all this live. Bruce has been basically putting on the same solid show for 30 years. Compare with the diversity of Lovesexy, 1999, SOTT, ONA, Hit and Run, Musicology, Dirty Mind, etc.

And don't get me started on the Aftershows.

jdcxc said:

You do realise there are people who love Bruce and hate Prince?

Does that make them wrong? NO.

Does it make people who prefer Prince over Bruce wrong? NO.

What connects with one person is not always going to connect with another. THAT'S THE POINT OF ART. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS BEST/RIGHT/WRONG!!

Music = Art = Subjectivity.

MUSIC IS NOT SPORT!

It amazes me that some people are so blinded by their devotion to Prince that they can't grasp this concept.

Bruce Dickinson

If I liked classic rock maybe Bruce.

But I don't, so Prince by a pretty much infinite margin.

I like Bruce, but I'm not a fan. I know his biggest hits and whenever I've seen him on TV I say "huh, that was pretty good", but I'm about as casual a fan as you get when it comes to rock in general.

TyphoonTip said:

Smarty pants, it's not that complex of a concept. Rock and Roll debates are purely for fun and have been around forever. No one needs to be lectured about the definition of art. Music journalism is founded on the critique of performance. And whether you want to admit it or not, we all critique, compare and analyze "art" in varying degrees. Have you ever read artist interviews, the competition of their craft is never far from the surface. Hell, a major theme of Purple Rain was the healthy competition of artists. Do you know the history of Jazz music in contemporary artist culture?

Besides, all this talk of Bruce and Prince has blinded me to the greatest living performer- Britney Spears! Art is so subjective.

jdcxc said:

No, Bruce hasn't been doing the same show for 30 years. You should check out the acoustic "Nebraska" tour stuff; the "Human Touch" tour with a completely different band (he fired the E Street Band back in the early 90's), the 20-piece Seeger Sessions Band (unbelievable music, I mean absolutely unbelievable), and the "Devils and Dust" tour, where Bruce re-worked all his best songs on every instrument imaginable.

The diversity of what Bruce has done live over the years is, believe it or not, every bit as impressive as what Prince has done. Now, let's talk about aftershows.

Bruce has done a few, but what Bruce does that Prince doesn't comes in the offseason. Prince has sat in with a few people here and there at the random bar, but Bruce will spend months going from bar to bar, gig to gig, and sitting in with whomever is playing. Some of this is planned, some is not. Bruce has probably done at least as much of this as Prince has done aftershows.

Look, you can say you like one artist over another - that's cool, it's all subjective. But if you want to get into factual stuff, then as Bruce would say, "Working on your wheels, you get your facts learned, and baby I got my facts, learned real good right now".

Bohemian67 said:

LMAO, wild west and cowboys? Nah. Let me put it this way - the first time anyone ever told me about Bruce Springsteen, they said, "You've got to listen to this guy! All his songs are about girls and cars!"

LOL.

No disrepect to Bruce, but ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!

I got really into Bruce a few years ago with the Rising, and Magic. I always had Tunnel of Love but never knew how amazing it was until I dug it out. The latter would definitely be in my all time top ten.

Like others have said, it is difficult and probably pointless comparing two artists who are so different and who appear to so different an audience. However, I must say I have thought about this previously. To be honest, Bruce has more consistently put his 'heart into it'. Where a some of P's output sounds so uninspired (moreso at various points in his career), I can't say the same for Bruce. I used to make fun of Bruce's stuff being so simple but the truth is, he's the kind of guy you admire and respect. Prince is the type you are in awe of because he's just so amazingly gifted. You do have to work hard to respect him in any other way though. As I hav become older, I find P to be not the kind of person I'd want to be. Bruce, I still respect and admire.

Musically, no comparison - P is on a different planet, a different league. P is far more sophisticated a musician. When it comes to the live show, I've seen both. It's too diff to compare but while Springsteen is amazingly consistent (not boring), I don't think he can wow you like Prince (like his SNL version of Fury for example!).

Ultimately, for me, it boils down to content and who you are now. At 50, P still sings about 'rims, grills and clubs' while Bruce sings of matters relevant and mature. The lyrics still matter to Bruce, and don't for Prince. I have to remind myself that Prince is the same man who wrote 'Adore'. Someone should remind him.

tx

One thing is for certain. I've never heard Bruce Springsteen referred to as a dick.

jdcxc said:

Indeed, music debates are purely for fun; and of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, I think you'll find there is a sizable number of orgers who think that their opinion regarding Princes 'untouchability' is actually carved in stone fact; and that those who don't share this opinion are plain ignorant. This was illustrated countless times a few months ago with a spate of 'Prince, Best of all time' threads.

Thanks for the counter lecture. Hell, it was great.

TyphoonTip said:

same thing i was thinking . am not an uber-fan, but don't mind the boss at all. was thinking of checking him out actually when he performed somewhere near my house a while ago, but didn't. i'm sure his band is okay, but can't call it really cuz i'm not on his shit like that, like i am with princey, sooooo...

squirrelgrease said:

not a dick, but alot of people said "shut up and sing" when he got political during the rising tour

BlackAdder7 said:

Did he ask if it was better to be a leader or a follower?

In terms of musical talent I guess I would say Prince all the way.

But we are talikng about live performances!