punk vs nihilism vs whatchoogot?

the "commentary" discussion (and coincident musical snipe) has me thinking about musical nihilism. rock and roll rebellion is the ancestor to all, of course, but punk deconstructed everything to the point of often ignoring the con in deconstruction, and passed as perilously close and often full over the lines into nihilism and anarchy, (always recalling to me pearl and her cover of dylan's observation that, when you got nothing, you've got nothing left to lose), as does any musical argument based on taste. (billy idol trash talking zep is the funniest joke of all, observing what a pop poseur he turned out to be, but billy was never really punk, was he).

i've long since stopped worrying that my music offends many. if you know anyone whose melvern taylor records sit beside MC5 in their alphebetized record collections, please introduce me--i'd like to know what else they've got. but i'm gonna roll my eyes when someone resorts to fight-picking over any of it, like we used to in the days when it was either rock and roll or disco and die, because if you have to hate something to like something else, that, as dave champagne likes to sing, is not love.

or, put another way, you can't enjoy the absence of something nearly as much as the presence of something else, so put your music where your mouth is, and let us all hear what sort of musical epicure you are supposing yourself to be. and then, because we're all entertained by other people's misery, tell us anything you own that's worse than the neil diamond record i have yet to throw out that even my ex wife couldn't be bothered to keep around, and lighten the whole thing up.