In my opinion this statement was basically contradicting your first statement. I don't think he's been important to any genre, I mean... every person on the list was important to their genre and music history as a whole (except for one), and Bruce Springsteen isn't. I think Cobain is just table scraps compared to Elvis and Sinatra, but I think compared to Springsteen he's the one who's light years ahead. [/QUOTE]

Not to get into a whole thing here b/c one's man coffee is another man's tea. Music is all about opinion. I'll agree that Cobain was partly responsible for starting the grunge genre, no doubt. And Nirvana's music spawned all kinds of imitators. But it's not that different from punk rock in that it fizzled out after about 10 years. And I have a difficult time putting a guy like Cobain in simply for the fact that he only has a few albums out.
Springsteen might not have pioneered a new sound. His was a blend of Phil Spector/Creedence/Dylan. But his stage presence was, and is, unmatched. And that's part of his legacy. In his younger days, the guy would give a 4 hour show for almost an entire 100 city tour. And that was sometimes preceded by a 2 hour soundcheck. Today, he "only" gives 3 hour shows. No performer has given as much of him/herself on stage than the Boss.
In addition, he wrote thematic albums, instead of just a collection of songs. For every 1 song he released, he had 4 that he recorded for the same album. "Born in the USA" was 12 songs and 60 were written for the record. He honed his craft to a fine science. Springsteen gave away songs that others would build albums around: "Fire," "Because the Night," "Light of Day," "Pink Cadillac," and "The Fever" to name but a few.