Very interesting series of posts Gary. But Nirvana did destroy rock music. The ironic, postmodernistic approach to rock outstayed its welcome (even if it did serve a useful purpose) and really stuffed things up.

Shaun,
How did Nirvana did destroy rock music? I don't understand.

I thought Nirvana gave rock music new life and energy. Aren't they seen as major new talent who infuse the scene with the sense of excitement and possibilities the way that, say, the Sex Pistols or the Clash or Springsteen and Bowie all did in the mid-70s.

Isn't Nevermind widely regarded as a classic? Don't Nirvana stand for alternative rock?

I don't actually disagree with you Gary. A short explanation follows.

Nirvana were a justified reaction to the excesses of 80s hair metal. They helped reset the clock back to zero in regards to rock. A positive development was they helped make rock egalitarian and helped pave the way for women to be more than an accessory in rock music. (explored in detail here:http://rocknrolldamnation.wordpress.com/2006/02/07/hello-world-im-your-wild-girls/)

The trouble was that Nirvana (not their fault to be honest) also inspired a lot of shoe-shuffling, navel gazing, uninpired angsty, self-conscious, overly ironic, insipid, rock and roll that took the fun out of the music. This ruined rock for a time. A good example of the reaction to Nirvana are The Donnas. They are both a confirmation and repdudiation of Nirvana's legacy.

That is not to say that Nirvana were not important. 'Nervermind" is a classic though I think there were better bands (Soundgarden, Alice in Chains) in the Seattle scene at the time.

I've been meaning to do a much longer article on this subject. I'll try after the one on positive rock snobbery I have been toying with.