Bangels better be on that list.
I wrote “best songwriter” because “best lyricist” isn’t even worth a thought. Dylan, hands down. Nobel prizes aren’t awarded unless you are the best.
As for music, that’s a tough one. I think Billy Joel is a better pianist than most people think. Singer? (checks location). Bruce, hands down.
And how come, in a thread about musicians that mentions musical groups starting with “B”, I’m the first one to mention the Beatles. No group is even close to their category.
coughHenry Kissingercough
Don’t mean to be snarky but I reeeeeeeeeeeeeally doubt it. Or perhaps for an extremely generous definition of “passed down, studied and celebrated for generations to come”. I’d be surprised if a significant number of people know who he is a couple of decades after the last baby boomer dies.
As far as the OP is concerned, I’d say :
Best songwriter ? Springsteen’s songs paint worlds and lives more vividly but Joel’s have more musical range.
Best singer ? Technically Joel. Emotionally Springsteen.
Best musician ? Joel
No, I’m not a fan a Dylan by any stretch of the imagination. Nobel Prize or not (how relevant is this anyway ? Look at the list of winners from 100 years ago), I see him as one of the most ridiculously overestimated acts from the past 50 years. Awful voice, flat melodies and, most annoyingly, gibberish passing for deep poetry. Ugh.
I’m sorry.
I’d go with this, even though I haven’t really been able to get deep into Dylan. I simply don’t like Billy Joel’s music, and don’t really consider him rock, either, so he’s well behind for me, as well.
Joel’s good, but he’s been slowing down with age. He composed an album of classical music Fantasies and Delusions, but had to ask his friend, Richard Hyung-ki Joo, to perform it. As Joel put it, “I can’t even play some of the music I wrote anymore.”
Which I think are ridiculous, jftr. I’ve never seen the logic or sense in drawing some sort of line between rock and pop. Is “No Man’s Land,” the opening track on River of Dreams, not rock n’ roll? Gimme a break.
But I still have to put Springsteen well above him. Hell, “Born to Run” by itself does that. 44 years later, that song is still fucking awesome. And thinking about it reminds me of the music of the time: the power and depth of late Sixties rock n’roll was fading into 1970s mellow-rock, and the counterreaction of punk rock was already picking up steam. And Springsteen steps into the middle of this with a sound that’s neither part of that continuation nor part of the counterreaction, but something that’s new and powerful and just his.
Billy Joel’s Piano Man is still the best bar room song going. He also wrote a tune called “We Didn’t Start the Fire.” It has historical references that rhyme in the right chronological order! That is quite an amazing feat.
That one’s rock (or as rock as he gets), but a lot of his stuff sounds like rock as interpreted by somebody who should be composing for Broadway. Like “It Still Rock and Roll to Me” sounds like a song that should be straight out of a musical. It just sounds like rock written by somebody who doesn’t really write rock songs. But whatever. Clearly, he writes songs that a lot of people connect with and enjoy and play on oldies stations to this very day, so he’s certainly survived the test of time. And as a pianist, he is reasonable technically. He’s certainly not a slouch at his instrument. “Stiletto,” in particular, has a very nice piano solo.
No musical has ever featured rock music? I beg to differ.
Moving Out, the juke box musical based on the songs of Billy Joel, did well.
That is not at all what I said. I’ve been to rock musicals (and even performed at the piano and as musical director for our high school production of “Pippin”), but that’s what BJ’s music sounds like to me. It sounds like rock as written for Broadway.
And, yes, I am familiar with “Moving Out,” but that only underscores my point that his music has a setting that fits into Broadway’s interpretation of rock.
Agreed. I love them all, but Dylan stands head and shoulders above them.
If you listen to his early albums you can see that he’s a great singer, guitarist and all around musician, in addition to songwriter/poet.
Yeah, he started sounding like a wheezing old man long before his time, and his live shows are hit or miss, but he’s still one of the best musicians America has ever produced.
I totally agree.
Dylan has written:
1. ONE–and only one… absolute masterpiece, for which he deserves deep respect.
(Blowing in the Wind. A timeless song of peace, which captured the spirit of the 60’s, but will still be sung meaningfully in the next century.)
2.ONE–and only one… really great, socially observant lyrics, a prophecy which came true.
(The Times they are a Changing. Wonderfully predicted something which was not at all obvious in 1964, a time when the Beatles still suits on stage, and teenagers expected chaperones to supervise their high school dances.But 4 years later,Dylan’s predictions had come true.So the song is good, but now seems quaint and unnecessary. Like “We Shall Overcome”: it is a once-great song that now belongs in the archives.Nobody will sing it in the future.
- ONE, and only one… really good piece of poetry. (Mr. Tambourine man. good poetic imagery of a poet describing himself with lyrics unusual for pop/rock music. To really see how bad his singing voice and his music style is…compare Dylan’s original to the Byrds version of the same song.
So Dylan deserves some respect, but it all gets ruined for me by the way people turn that respect into a religion. following him blindly like born-again believers at a faith-healing church.
As for Billie Joel and Bruce Springsteen:
Joel is like a good Broadway musical. Always fun to sing along with, and sometimes elicits real emotional response.
(Like, say Fiddler on the Roof, or Oklahoma… Broadway shows that became classic because , although designed to be simple entertainment, they stay with you for the emotions you didnt expect to feel when you bought the ticket.Example: Piano Man.
Springsteen is more personal and emotional. Better lyrics than Joel, but not as interesting musically.
Let’s just say I vehemently disagree with almost every single word of the above and leave it at that. 
Just to put a different spin on the question: let’s say Bob Dylan and Billy Joel each decided, back when, to take their best shot at playing singer-songwriter in what can only be described as ‘in the style of Bruce Springsteen’. And then they turn around and do that for each other, as does Springsteen.
So that’s, what, six songs to consider? And, okay, that takes some thought; but I’m genuinely curious: if we start off by figuring each one is the best of the three at his own signature schtick, how are they at the others?
Springsteen would win his schtick, obviously. He also has Bob’s down as well, as evidenced by The Ghost of Tom Joad, Nebraska and the Seeger Sessions. So that’s 3 albums of material where he is as good as Bob at Bob’s thing.
I’d have to pick three of Bruce’s songs I absolutely loathe to compare him to Joel. Who I also loathe.
From my quick research, Billy Joel had 33 songs in the top ten. Bruce and Bob have had a few hits here and there, but Joel was a hit-making machine.
Something else to consider: Joel’s last original album came out in 1993, and was a big hit (“River of Dreams”). Had Joel continued to record, it’s not difficult to imagine the hits would have continued. Dylan and Bruce continue to produce original music but, honestly, could the average person name a single song they’ve done since maybe the 1990s?
Finally, Joel continues to be a huge concert draw, selling out stadiums (including Madison Square Garden every month) without having a note of original music to support.
My opinion? Billy Joel is the champ.
Britney Spears has had a number of songs in the top ten. She, like Joel, sings pablum.
The champ of nostalgia?