Heh, heh, another Nirvana hater from Stevehoffman.tv? Not a big fan of the Doors, they were before my time, but believe me, Nirvana's stature was extraordinary even before Cobain's psychological instability was exposed, much less before his suicide.
I don't hate 'em at all (I own both the DGC studio albums, as a matter of fact), but I think their "greatness" is wildly overblown. Yeah, they were a big big deal when Curt (Kurt? Kurdt?) was still alive (though I do remember reading the lukewarm 3-star review of Nevermind by Ira Robbins in Rolling Stone before "Teen Spirit" mania hit), but even then it was more about C/Kur(d)t's angst and the fact that critics were cheering them on to slay hair metal than anything really amazing about their music. Their music was good and occasionally great, but like the Doors, they're largely riding on pure mystique now.
They did pick the famous live album by Muddy Waters. His best work was singles, so an Anthology is very appropriate.
Not to be a stick-in-the-mud, but if an artist didn't make any good LPs (whether its because LPs weren't a factor when they were recording, or because they were a singles-oriented act), then he/she/they shouldn't be on a list of best LPs. I guess it depends on if you view an LP as a unit, or simply as a collection of songs. Since a lot of what ended up on the list obviously got there because of historical import/total album "statement" rather than the quality of each individual track (Pepper and Pet Sounds, to name two), you end up with a mess of conflicting criteria.
After all, if comps are eligible, then Meaty Beaty Big and Bouncy and CCR's Chronicle got robbed. But do we really want to go there?
I know I'm taking this way too seriously, but as you say, RS obviously *didn't* take it seriously.
PS - No Roy Orbison?