Honestly? I don't see all that much difference between what John Cougar-Meloncamp-Finkelstein-Levine-Tattelbaum-Morrisey-Dipthong-Jones and what Springsteen does, to begin with. I've never... understood the appeal of Springsteen.
The whole "I'm so sincere and I'm so concerned and I'm so much like all of you, come to my show and I'll sign all your albums but don't scratch my Range Rover or I'll have you arrested" fake-blues-bar thing has always left me wanting.
I mean, I suppose Bruce has an edge on John in terms of... slightly less embarrassing musicianship... but they're both poor man's Bob Dylan, if you're gonna use that analogy, or more appropriately, they're both "Billy Joel with dirt on his #####".
My model of rock and roll tends to be that you're either supposed to be a madman getting by on energy and delusion or a bitter little fellow, old in body or soul or both, who hides in his apartment hating the world, being depressing and honing one's craft.
If you're not trying to be Axl Rose or Robert Fripp, you're just making dance records.
Of course, I've been told that my finger isn't exactly on the pulse.