Entirely subjective but the worst offender on that list is Radiohead.
Clearly two great albums is not enough. Otherwise, it's Nirvana and it's not even close in terms of what they did to popular music (their success might have got Radiohead signed in late '91 in the first place) both critically and commercially. And their influence reached across genres,most definitely and has lasted for years.
As an aside, 90% of all post-grunge bands were PJ, Soundgarden and AIC etc. clones, not Nirvana. It permeated through hard rock and metal, not the more punkish stuff. Probably Nirvana was responsible for some of the pop-punk of the late 90's but passively, IMO.
But if the base is having to overcome only two great albums and an influence that would have (essentially) spanned only half the decade at best (more likely the 3 years following OK Comp) then I could make cases for a half dozen other groups in that slot, including Pearl Jam, for an easy example. Radiohead is not the choice for the 90's. They are the
easy choice for this decade over Coldplay, for the same reasons I'd take Zeppelin over The Eagles (keeping with bands only).
The Eagles have the second biggest selling album of all time.
What is it? Their greatest hits from the 70's. Hugely influential (though I happen to agree with
The Dude here) and huge commercial success, but this is where any objectivity takes it up the ass. I don't like em as much, so Zeppelin works better. Radiohead over Coldplay for the same reason.
I'm not sold on U2 in the 80's either. Although it's hard to think of a band off-hand that would have the same resume. Not sticking to bands, it's easily, easily, not U2. Madonna, Prince, MJ, Springsteen etc.
Too many varying criteria here and too much subjectivity. Yeah, I know, that's mostly what talking about music is.
So we are all never going to agree but let me just throw out one objective fact for the sensible among us to agree on.
The Beatles own them all.