I think this is a good point: Having an option (perhaps something like "RigorousMath") could be useful. Another possibility would be to generate a warning message, similar to the ones we get for, e.g., solutions of nonlinear equations, where Mathematica does warn us that some solutions may be missing. In both cases the user can then use his/her additional insight into the problem of interest to reformulate the problem, or provide restrictions such that the problem of a ballooning tree of conditionals can be avoided. Let's not forget that there may be cases where the user actually does want to see all of the possible solutions, too. Like you said, in the simple case of Solve versus Reduce, that option exists, but in many other cases it doesn't.
Finally, admittedly on a slightly different note, I would be curious as to whether there is in fact a rigorous definition, that is grounded in mathematical reasoning rather than convenience of coding or using Mathematica, behind that comforting-sounding adjective in "generic solution". Frankly, the term "generic" is a dangerously over-used term in certain circles, often used to gloss over significant holes in people's mathematical arguments...