I think as correctly stated it's not an us vs. them mentality. At the time music upheavals were treated with scorn and suspicion, as the music executives told us what we were going to like. Call it a polar opposite of what we see today, but Disco was not without cultural influence. And we may not have accepted it had it been something out of nowhere.
Rock and Roll had been going super strong since Elvis and was experiencing upheavals and issues of its own. We were coming out of a great rock run spanning multiple decades, which was the epicenter of the anti-war movement. America was tired. We as a country were the product of Vietnam, Watergate, a slowing economy, growth of rampant drug use, death of Hendrix, Morrison, etc. All told, this created a music void in the early 70's- no more Vietnam, the aftermath of the deaths, etc. We just didn't feel good about ourselves, and this went on into the Disco era, while at the same time paving the way for disco.
Disco was fast, good sounding, catchy, and sang by talented performers- many saw the era unfolding in front of them and adapted. Most of all, it brought people together for the first time in a long time through the discos, dancing, etc, which is what this country was ready for. The music execs had it right and correctly predicted the confluence of events leading to the rise of disco. It definitely was NOT shoved down our throats but more of a product of a confluence of events. I think to cast aspersions on it doesn't do music evolution justice and even more so decades after the fact.
Today, rock, pop, and disco are lumped into great sounding music. I went to get tickets for a Bee Gees cover and they were sold out. One ticket on SH was $100. To me, it's not as much disco vs. rock vs. punk, etc. but more of today's (all synthesizers, sound the same, full of bass) music vs. that of yesteryear. I think this is the real dividing line. Cheers!
