Please allow me a respectful dissent from the effusive accolades heaped on Bruce Springsteen by Chris Richards [“Worshipping the Tao of Bruce,” Style, Sept. 15]. As Richards relates, few, if any, will say they don’t like Springsteen. I will.

I grant Springsteen his deserved following as the voice of a generation, as the champion of the underdog and troubadour of the “common man” (although apparently not too many common men made it to the concert at Nationals Park, which was packed with Washington’s movers and shakers, according to Richards).

While the article made much of Springsteen’s bipartisan appeal and the enthusiasm of his fans, little was said about Springsteen qua singer. I see Springsteen as one of those “singers” who can’t sing. Louis Armstrong, Joe Cocker and Steven Tyler come to mind in that category. They all have their staunch followings. But to me, Springsteen growls (a word Richards uses). And when he sings, his voice strains and his face contorts into a grimace.

If I want pleasant, uplifting sounds of the human voice, I will take the Three Tenors, Frank Sinatra and Willie Nelson over Springsteen any time. I prefer dulcet to screechy.

Rob Klein, Gainesville

The Post blew it in its coverage of the Bruce Springsteen concert. Yes, the articles in the Weekend section before the concert were helpful and informative; and yes, the Sept. 15 article on how Springsteen means many things to many people in the District was interesting. But that was a review of the concert-goers, not of the concert itself. To not do an actual review of one of the year’s biggest musical events in Washington is inexcusable.

Gary A. Sanders, Alexandria