This was a strange article to read through because Dyer was extremely forceful of his opinions. I can understand that people at the time saw disco as a capitalist thing. I can also assume that disco was seen as a gay thing. But his ideas about eroticism, romanticism, and materialism are a bit hard to understand. When he mentions that rock music is phallo-centric it becomes harder to understand his mentality. Like I see where disco could be more capitalistic because it is made for clubs. That part is interesting because you can look at music and see how it was created can affect the way people see it. Other parts are harder to accept because of the way he states it. Just listening to disco music would have not made me think that it was seen a thing connected to gay people. And after learning about that history, it’s still hard to see how that sexuality can be represented in the different genres.
Everything that Dyer talks about it said as if they are facts, but the way he identifies entire music genres as more erotic or more romantic in some ways than others was new to me. Although I am open to the new ideas, it still seems hard to see the genres the way he describes it completely. When I listen to music I don’t think that one type is erotic just because of its genre or its rhythm. And even when I try to see it his way, I am not sure how to separate the different types of romanticism or eroticism that he states. To me these seem more like opinions, and because he does not really explain them clearly, I can’t say I’m fully convinced. I understand Dyer wants disco to be seen the way he sees it, but I don’t know how to see it that way.