I always say the biggest distance issue in golf is the distance from front door to first tee, and most golf is played within 20 miles of home. So, of course, it's important. And, not only that, but while the quality of classics remains relatively equal over different design periods, there is little doubt that the "country club for a day" or "upscale public" design quality starting increasing dramatically in the 1980's and continues to this day. So, yeah, it is probably worth more discussion, but for reasons listed, it is not. (insert sad face)
I also always say that the moniker "A course you could play every day" is undervalued. Yes, we want to get to those dramatic resort courses or play a tournament course a few times per year, and their designs often justify the excitement. But, part of it is getting to see something you DON"T see every day. Would you really want to play a Dye course where you shoot 20 over your normal score most times (in exchange for occasionally having a career-best at such a course 5% or 0.5% less of the time? I believe most golfers just want to shoot near their average score most days. They want some challenge, or it wouldn't be exciting enough, but not so much as to leave with that "all beat up" feeling. And, designing to that standard, most places most of the time, is an important part of design philosophy, again, most of the time.
BTW, even those exciting designs can get blah when overdone. Case in point, with it's fantastic shaping, I started to find every hole at PGA West melded together over the round. Perhaps a few simpler greens in that (or almost any design) would make each hole more memorable, which is a bit off topic, but trying to point out that we want to make every course good, but somehow, the top 1% are going to rise, even if everything below it is better than it used to be.