This Nirvana argument reminds me of the email debate I've had over Liz Phair's "Exile in Guyville." With the new album coming, and sucking so supremely, I was really saddened. A friend took the opportunity to state that Guyville was the most overrated album of the 90s for blahblahblah reasons, mostly dealing with "the music/songs just aren't that great."
In the end, my P.O.V. was that it's *influence* is not debatable. Okay, it's not the Stones or Beatles, but she opened a lot of doors to real women singing real songs, whether they're pretty or not. Maybe Janis Joplin or others did this as well, but she certainly raised the awareness to a newer generation.
So, what's interesting in light of the Nirvana discussion (which I agree with), is that an album or artist's influence may have little to do with the music itself. It's where that artist shifts the (I won't say paradigm, I swear I won't say paradigm) spectrum of *popular* music.
Now that I'm finished, I hope this makes sense to someone but me!! :cool: