After reading this, I was thoroughly confused. Should I have thought disco was a political and economic tool to re-establish certain aspects of society? Was it a social tool to help people with the understanding of gay culture?
The main point I took away from it was that Disco managed to produce music in ways that other genres such as Rock and Folk did, but also pushed beyond limits that seemed to have been set by the genre themselves. I think the author kept referring to how the music always had closed endings, and disco didn’t. Was Disco seen as wrong to have made money off of body feelings and sexuality? If that was the case than I’m sure Rock could be in the wrong for that as well, right? And I think thats what the author was saying.
Anyways, still very confused.