Well, please understand that my comment wasn't really directed at your post. It's a commonly held belief that Nirvana were at the fore-front of the alternative music renaissance of the early 90s, and I was more reacting to that idea, which you alluded to with your post. Also, while it's possible that the Pumpkins may have broken up earlier if they had not met with financial success (and debatable as to if the band should have given up while they were ahead) we can't simply assume this. They could very well have gone on to become an even better, more focused band through toiling in obscurity. Certainly we hold MBV in incredibly high regard despite the fact that the band essentially ceased to exist after the release of Loveless. I'm not saying Nirvana wasn't important, because they clearly were, but personally Kurt just wasn't all that talented. He couldn't sing well, couldn't play well, wrote about one thing, and got a lot of credit for being a disillusioned youth.

I'm not judging Nirvana because they inspired a lot of really wretched acts. So did the Beatles and Zeppelin and a lot of other great classic bands. It's simply the nature of the beast that there will always be imitators of the popular, and they almost always fail horribly. However, my distaste for Nirvana stems mostly from Nirvana's lackluster music, and not from their influence, which is certainly substantial. But I still don't think that music as a whole really needed Nirvana. Making alternative rock popular only allowed for a lot of terrible bands like Nickelback to become rich and famous, and that totally sucks balls. There was and always will be great underground music regardless of the popularity of the genre.

Personally, Foo Fighters suck and their fame is completely undeserved. And honestly, there was a lot going on in the 80s before Nirvana came around. Maybe you've heard of The Cure? I'd certainly hope so, and The Cure certainly make better music than Nirvana, or most other bands for that matter.