A lot of Dyer’s evidence is conceptual. For example, he uses the theories of economics, that the goal of capitalism is to make a profit, produce commodities, and focus on the exchange values rather than the use-values. His arguments for rock versus disco are purely concept based and have no statistical backing, stating that rock is ‘quite expensive…. Largely by middle class who could afford electric guitars, music lessons, etc.’. I understand that it might be difficult to obtain numbers on this, as he instead states to refer to many biographies of professionals who have the same background. These still feel very observational and possibly subject to bias, even if most people agree, but it is still a small nitpick. The same idea of purely observational arguments could be made with the folk argument, how Gaelic sounds ‘don’t mean much to English speaking people today’. As true as it might be, it feels very off and generalized. It might mean a lot to a certain group of people, and seeing how disco began as a culture very important to marginalized identities, this feels almost contradictory. His most solid evidence comes from his discussion on capitalism and disco, as he goes into capitalist theory strictly by defining it and its purposes and relating it to disco. His other solid ‘evidence’ comes from his interpretations of rock, pop, and disco songs and sounds to describe the three characteristics of disco. For example, he examines some Diana Ross songs, such as Ain’t No Mountain High Enough through the lens of romanticism, with its ‘heavenly choir and sweeping violins’ that one can listen to and interpret for themselves. He provided examples of readings, such as One-Dimensional Man, song lyrics, and sonic elements, like the phallic, pounding sounds of
A lot of Dyer’s evidence is conceptual. For example, he uses the theories of economics, that the goal of capitalism is to make a profit, produce commodities, and focus on the exchange values rather than the use-values. His arguments for rock versus disco are purely concept based and have no statistical backing, stating that rock is ‘quite expensive…. Largely by middle class who could afford electric guitars, music lessons, etc.’. I understand that it might be difficult to obtain numbers on this, as he instead states to refer to many biographies of professionals who have the same background. These still feel very observational and possibly subject to bias, even if most people agree, but it is still a small nitpick. The same idea of purely observational arguments could be made with the folk argument, how Gaelic sounds ‘don’t mean much to English speaking people today’. As true as it might be, it feels very off and generalized. It might mean a lot to a certain group of people, and seeing how disco began as a culture very important to marginalized identities, this feels almost contradictory. His most solid evidence comes from his discussion on capitalism and disco, as he goes into capitalist theory strictly by defining it and its purposes and relating it to disco. His other solid ‘evidence’ comes from his interpretations of rock, pop, and disco songs and sounds to describe the three characteristics of disco. For example, he examines some Diana Ross songs, such as Ain’t No Mountain High Enough through the lens of romanticism, with its ‘heavenly choir and sweeping violins’ that one can listen to and interpret for themselves. He provided examples of readings, such as One-Dimensional Man, song lyrics, and sonic elements, like the phallic, pounding sounds of