I'm in a somewhat unique posiion re: Springsteen because I like him, 
but I'm not nuts for him.  Usually it's bifurcated; people love the guy 
or totally don't get him.

I saw Springsteen a the Palladium in NYC in September of '78, a home 
turf small theater gig on what was arguably his best tour ever. And it 
was uterly, totally lost on me; at the time I was seeing bands like Yes 
and ELP (with orchestra) and Pink Floyd in hockey rinks, wih synths and 
lasers and 20-minute songs.  Springsteen just didn't add up. Now I have 
a whole different appreciation of that show I didn' get, and some 
indelible memories of it.  The thing about Springsteen is that for the 
most part, his records are not what he's about (although Born to Run 
has aged on me into a top-tier classic.)  It is very much about the 
live experience; that and the songwriting (which isn't always best 
conveyed on record) and the, I don't know, the earnestness with which 
he appears to approach his job.  He takes being a rocker very 
seriously, believes in the redempive power of rock'n'roll, and that 
remains thrilling, I think.

On the other hand, his band today is too crowded-- Nils, Miami Steve, 
Patti, and Suzi Tyrell on violin, and for my money there is space in 
the mix for 1.5 of them, tops.  E Street runs 11 deep now, as compared 
to an already-lavish 7 deep in the '75-'84 heyday.  And it has been a 
while since he's put out a noteworhy record; some liked The Rising, but 
subject matter aside I thought the production was thin and cluttered 
and I can't tout a record when every time I played it, I ended up 
looking at my watch.

Still, he is one of a very small number of artists I would venture into 
a hockey rink to see (and at this point, not even the New York Rangers 
are on that list.)