Melodic structure

Significant changes to melodic structure make Franklin's ‘Respect’ different from Redding's. Franklin uses blue notes more emphatically than Redding, her blue notes are generally lowered further than Redding's and, in fact, the entire melodic structure is different. Transcriptions of the introduction, first verse and refrain of both versions (shown in Example 1 and Example 2) illustrate some of the most obvious differences in melodic structure. The transcriptions are intended to be a rough account of the melodic content, with the caveat that some pitches are blue notes, residing in between true tempered scale degrees, in both versions. For example, scale degree 3 in Redding's recording resides in between F-natural and F-sharp, particularly in bar 11 on ‘asking’, bar 15 on ‘yeah’, and parallel passages in the subsequent verses. Since his mediant scale degree sounds higher than Franklin's, which is more squarely centred on the lowered form of the mediant (E-flat rather than E-natural), by comparison, I have notated scale degree 3 in Redding's version as F-sharp rather than F-natural.

Example 1.

Redding, ‘Respect’, introduction, first verse and refrain.

Note: This transcription is the author's interpretation of the version of ‘Respect’ that appeared on Otis Blue: Otis Redding Sings Soul (Atlantic, SD 33-284, 1965).

Example 2.

Franklin, ‘Respect’, introduction, first verse and refrain.

This transcription is the author's interpretation of the reissued version of ‘Respect’ that appeared on Aretha Franklin Queen of Soul: The Atlantic Recordings (Rhino Records, R2 71063, 1992).

The overall key – as played by the rhythm section – of Franklin's version is C major, yet the lead vocal melody draws upon the C minor pentatonic collection because of Franklin's extensive emphasis on lowered scale degree 3 (E-flat) and lowered scale degree 7 (B-flat) as blue notes.Footnote ² These marked scale degrees are foreshadowed in the lead guitar melody in the introduction before Franklin's voice enters on E-flat. Her entrance on E-flat is also emphasised as the first and highest note of the passage, which functions as a primary marker of melodic difference between the two versions. Although Redding uses some blue notes, his use is not as extensive as Franklin's, and his vocal part relies mostly on the major pentatonic collection, mostly a subset of the diatonic collection of the rhythm section, which plays in D major. Example 3 compares the basic scale-degree structure of both versions. Although they share some of the same core structural pitches, Franklin's structure deviates from Redding's increasingly as the melodic structure of the first verse and refrain unfolds in bars 5–10. Franklin extensively reconceives the melody of ‘Respect’, which is a critical aspect of her re-authoring of the song.

Example 3.

Comparison of lead vocal parts, first verse and refrain.

Another marked difference between the recordings involves the nature of syncopation in the delivery of melodic content. Both recordings use syncopation, which is commonplace in many popular genres, but in Redding's version, vocals and horns use syncopation at the level of the eighth note, whereas Franklin's backing vocals and the guitar feature syncopation at the level of the 16th note. Furthermore, in general the horns in Redding's version use less syncopation than the accompanimental instruments in Franklin's version. To illustrate, compare Redding's version in Example 1, bars 2 and 4 (horns), bars 7, 9 and 13 (lead vocal) and bars 14–15 (vocals on ‘hey, hey, hey’) with Franklin's version in Example 2, bars 1–4 (guitar) and bars 11–14 (backing vocals).

Henry Louis Gates, Jr. (Reference Gates1988) offers the concept of ‘rewriting the speakerly’ as a black literary device that results from intertextual play between two works as part of a larger trope of Signifyin(g), which he defines as ‘repetition and revision, or repetition with a signal difference’ and argues that ‘whatever is black about black American literature is to be found in this identifiable black Signifyin(g) difference’ (Gates Reference Gates1988, p. xxiv). Scholars have applied this concept to musical genres as well.Footnote ³ Franklin's revision of melodic structure, along with significant changes to vocal delivery and lyrics, exemplifies the kind of intertextual play Gates describes. Furthermore Franklin's revision serves as a ‘motivated’ rewriting, which Gates describes as a parody or ‘close reading’ intended to comment upon the original source, if we understand Franklin's emphasis on lowered 3 to be a musical outdoing or one-upping as it functions as a heightened blue note and marker of primacy in the melodic structure, in contrast to Redding's more unassuming pentatonic structure (Gates Reference Gates1988, p. xxvi). This outdoing around the use of blue notes might be understood to highlight a critical dimension in Franklin's version in that Gates contrasts ‘motivated’ rewritings with ‘unmotivated’ rewritings with the latter lacking a consciously critical element within the act of Signifyin(g) in the sense of a pastiche.

Vocal delivery

Perhaps the most compelling aspect of Franklin and Redding's respective recordings concerns how the voice is used, especially with regard to vocal quality and phrasing. Michael Coyle (Reference Coyle, Beebe, Fullbrook and Saunders2002) emphasises the importance of vocal delivery in cover songs:

Furthermore, Carys Wyn Jones (Reference Jones and Tate2005) argues that vocal delivery relates to constructions of authenticity in popular music; she writes, ‘The voice is especially important, as the instrument of most direct expression, and it must carry signifiers of authenticity in order to be accepted as sincere’ (Jones Reference Jones and Tate2005, p. 41). In addition, she argues, ‘Similar to the need for a voice to be unique is the demand for originality often bound up with notions of authenticity. Each song should be an expression of a singular self’ (Jones Reference Jones and Tate2005, p. 42). In terms of timbre and general delivery style, Franklin and Redding possess readily identifiable and seemingly singular voices, different from each other in a number of ways (such as grain, degree of rasp and clarity, range, use and frequency of melismas, and so forth).

That said, much of Redding and Franklin's styles of phrasing are similar: both use short, declamatory fragments and a mostly consistent pattern of delivery. Figure 1 parses the lyrics Redding and Franklin sing into segments based on where each singer takes a breath or pause in the delivery of the vocal line. In the verses (segments A–D), Redding's phrasing parses the first two verses similarly into four short segments of roughly equal duration. However, in the fourth verse, Redding departs from this structure and instead combines segments C and D into one larger segment. All combined segments are shaded in Figure 1. Franklin parses each line of all four verses into four discrete segments in a manner similar to Redding's treatment of the first three verses.

Figure 1.

Comparison of phrasing.

In the refrains (shown as segments E–K in Figure 1), Redding always connects segments F and G, and in the fourth refrain he connects F–H. Franklin similarly connects F and G in all of the refrains except for the third, which departs from the pattern of phrasing established in the previous refrains. In general, the overall pattern of phrasing in both recordings interacts with the lyrics in the following manner:

Segments F and G lead up to the primary message, which is the demand for respect, and all of the shorter segments lead up to this demand. The segments following F and G punctuate the primary message with affirmative interjections, such as ‘yeah baby’ and ‘yeah man’ in both versions.

Both singers use a playful elasticity in their delivery, and each artist emphasises different syllables, which characterises their phrasing as distinct from one another. Franklin uses what I call ‘syllabic elasticity’ – the contrast between syllables receiving relatively longer duration (agogic accent) and louder attack (dynamic accent) and fewer accentuated syllables – more extensively than Redding. Figure 1 underlines emphasised syllables, such as ‘got’ (at 0:16), ‘I’ (at 0:24, 0:45 and 1:05) and ‘all’ (at 1:00 and 1:24) in Redding's recording, which contrast with a greater number of emphasised syllables in Franklin's – ‘what’ (at 0:09), ‘what you need’ (at 0:13–0:15), ‘all I'm asking’ (at 0:18 and 0:39), ‘for’ (at 0:20 and 0:41), ‘wrong’ (at 0:31 and 0:36), ‘all’ (at 0:53), ‘give me’ (at 1:00), ‘prop’ (at 1:01), ‘when’ (at 1:06), ‘ooh’ (at 1:28) and ‘all … do for me’ (at 1:37–1:39). Franklin's syllabic elasticity functions as part of a larger discursive strategy, akin to what Gates (Reference Gates1988) describes as ‘talking texts’, which is ‘a black form of intertextuality’ where ‘black texts “talk” to other black texts’ (Gates Reference Gates1988, p. xxiii). A greater number of Franklin's phrases feature more marked emphasis at beginnings, such as in segments A and C in verses 1, 2 and 4. Franklin's single departure from this trend occurs in the third verse, where ‘all’ in segment B is marked by a drawn out delivery that mimics Redding's delivery on the same word in segment D of the same verse. This connection between the two versions is highlighted by the departure from Franklin's pattern of emphasis and draws attention to dialogue and play with the content and delivery in Redding's version. While Redding projects a protagonist who assumes a male role within a heterosexual relationship, Franklin portrays a female protagonist who responds to the character that Redding has created. The lyrics (having to do with money) and syllabic elasticity of the third verse in particular allow Franklin to portray her character as financially independent, in contrast to the addressee of Redding's version, who is assumed to be financially dependent.

David Nathan (Reference Nathan1999) argues that the style of phrasing Franklin heard in sermons by her father, Reverend Clarence LaVaughn Franklin, probably influenced phrasing in her own singing style (Nathan Reference Nathan1999, p. 74). Although there are dozens of extant recordings of his sermons, one particularly compelling example – ‘The eagle stirreth her nest’ (JVB 61/63) – demonstrates syllabic elasticity and an emergent phrasing technique that is remarkably similar to the segmented phrasing style in Aretha's ‘Respect’. Over the course of this six-and-a-half minute excerpt, the elder Franklin begins with impassioned speech that gives way to emotive singing gestures. At around 0:35, his phrasing evolves into short, emphasised declamatory segments featuring syllables that are more drawn out with agogic and dynamic accents that alternate rapidly with short, less accentuated segments. Figure 2 summarises a brief excerpt from this sermon where this pattern of phrasing first emerges. The technique is similar to the alternation of Aretha's more emphasised A and C segments, which alternate with less accentuated ones (B and D) in most of the verses of ‘Respect’. The Reverend's style of phrasing continues throughout the excerpt and evolves into a sermon melody in the D minor pentatonic scale. Throughout the recording, the congregation punctuates the Reverend's phrasing with energetic interjections in a call-and-response style. Similarly, the backing vocals in Franklin's ‘Respect’ prominently articulate the downbeat and her phrasing in a way that is reminiscent of the call-and-response punctuations in her father's sermons.

Figure 2.

Phrasing in C.L. Franklin's ‘The eagle stirreth her nest’, 0:35–0:45.

New (added) material

Differences in formal design because of added material contribute significantly to Franklin's re-authoring of the song. Figure 3 and Figure 4 summarise the form of Redding and Franklin's versions, respectively. The most noticeable additions to Franklin's version are: (1) the instrumental bridge, which R&B historians conclude was borrowed from Sam and Dave's ‘When something is wrong with my baby’ (Kellom Reference Kellom1989, p. 12; Marsh Reference Marsh1992, p. 29), and (2) the famous ‘R-E-S-P-E-C-T’ hook, Franklin's ‘signature section’. The formal additions in Franklin's version transform the standard symmetrical strophic design of Redding's original into a more expansive design.

Figure 3.

Formal design of Redding's ‘Respect’.

Figure 4.

Formal design of Franklin's ‘Respect’.

The lyrics of the signature section (‘R-E-S-P-E-C-T, find out what it means to me’), lasting a mere eight seconds, reveal that the protagonists portrayed by Franklin and Redding may understand the concept of respect differently. The musical energy peaks in this passage, and the section contrasts with the rest of the song. Franklin's vocal delivery is declamatory and limited in terms of pitch content (hovering around B-flat and C primarily), and it is highlighted by an abrupt change in texture where the instruments articulate only the downbeats while Franklin sings, drawing attention to her voice and lyrics. The texture is restored at 1:57 as the song concludes with a lively call-and-response between Aretha and her sisters, Carolyn and Erma Franklin, who sing backing vocals.

The backing vocals create a spirit of call-and-response throughout Franklin's recording, which is not present in Redding's. Patricia Hill Collins (Reference Collins1990) characterises call-and-response as an expression of ‘the ethic of caring’, which she describes as ‘the value placed on individual expressiveness, the appropriateness of emotions, and the capacity for empathy’ and argues is an important part of African American women's epistemology (Collins Reference Collins1990, p. 216). Furthermore, the call-and-response backing vocals connote dialogue among girlfriends or sisters (quite literally, in this case). Drawing upon ‘the idea of the girlfriend’ described by Kevin Everod Quashie (Reference Quashie2004) as ‘an oscillating identificatory process between self and other, a Black feminist idiom of subjecthood’ (Quashie Reference Quashie2004, p. 1), the backing vocals articulate Aretha's main points and offer support and confidence. The call-and-response dialogue reaches its culmination in the coda, where every line that Aretha sings is punctuated by a response from her sisters.

Franklin's version features new and altered lyrics, many of which are made possible by backing vocals performed by Franklin's sisters. For example, they repeat ‘just a little bit’ in the refrains and its variation ‘just a’ in the third refrain, and they punctuate the downbeats with ‘oohs’ in the verses. The ‘sock it to me’ line, which appears near the end of the song at 1:57, has generated much discussion among scholars and critics. Franklin describes its origins:

Buzzy Jackson (Reference Jackson2005, p. 173) describes the line as ‘catchy, feisty, and pleasingly raunchy’. Dobkin (Reference Dobkin2004, p. 169) characterises it as ‘a sexual demand’. Russell Gersten (Reference Gersten, DeCurtis, Henke and George-Warren1992, p. 335) similarly contrasts the ‘sweet and coy’ girl groups of the 1960s with the ‘strong and fierce, and ferociously sexual’ Franklin sisters. Steven Feld offers a less simplistic interpretation of the line and highlights its ambiguity: ‘The juxtaposition of “R-E-S-P-E-C-T / Find out what it means to me” with the chorus singing “Sock it to me” intensifies the effect. Does “Sock it to me” mean fuck me or fuck off?’ (Keil and Feld Reference Keil and Feld1994, p. 220). Ascribing only meanings that excessively sexualise the singers of this song, as many authors have done, is problematic because they too easily and dangerously become fodder for negative racial stereotyping. bell hooks (Reference hooks1992) argues that ‘sexual interpretations of the song seemed far removed from the way it was heard and celebrated in black communities’ and says, ‘“Respect” was heard by many black folks, especially black women, as a song challenging black male sexism and female victimisation while evoking notions of mutual care and support’ (hooks Reference hooks1992, p. 69). hooks situates Franklin's black female identity in direct opposition to ‘the representation of wild animalistic sexuality’, which closely resembles Jackson, Dobson and Gersten's interpretations of this line. Ann Powers (Reference Powers and O'Dair1997) similarly suggests that many of Franklin's songs cultivate multiple layers of meaning – ‘on the surface, concerned […] with love’, but on other levels, they transcend pleas for personal sexual liberation and become demands for freedom from all kinds of oppression (Powers Reference Powers and O'Dair1997, p. 93).

Furthermore, if we take into account the song's relationship to a broader cultural context, references to sex can be seen not only as signifiers of personal sexual liberation, but also as signifiers of freedom for oppressed people on a larger scale. Angela Y. Davis (Reference Davis1998) points out, ‘While sexual metaphors abound in [earlier pop songs from the 1930s], the female characters are clearly in control of their sexuality in ways that exploit neither their partners nor themselves’ (Davis Reference Davis1998, pp. 14–15). Coming out of the tradition of blues singing in which Bessie Smith and her contemporaries took part several decades before Franklin recorded ‘Respect’, the agency with which she and her sisters make such sexual references in this recording is inextricably linked to the references themselves. Thus, the ‘sock-it-to-me’ line marks Franklin's agency, not only as an empowering sexual metaphor in line with aspects of the African American blues tradition, but also as evidence of her own authorship. Or to address this last point a little differently, such authorial gestures are a key factor in the reading of Franklin's version as authentic, with authorship and authenticity being tightly bound to notions of artistic freedom and control (Keightley Reference Keightley, Frith, Straw and Street2001, p. 134).

Other changes in the lyrics occur throughout the recording and appear in boldface in Figure 5. Italicised portions indicate passages that correspond to one another, but on different lines rather than in parallel positions. Even a cursory glance at Figure 5 shows that Franklin has rewritten the lyrics extensively. Many of these changes suggest a dialogic interpretation – as though Franklin is speaking in response to Redding.Footnote ⁴ In this way, it may be understood as an answer song, which features changes to the lyrics that respond to the original version.

Figure 5.

Comparison of lyrics in both versions.

Gates's concept of the ‘Signifyin(g) Monkey’ as a black rhetorical trope may allow us to more deeply understand the dialogue that emerges between Redding and Franklin's respective versions. Within black literary traditions, Gates (Reference Gates1988, p. xxiii) identifies repetition ‘with difference’, which ‘manifests itself in specific language use’. In his application of the concept to black musical practices, Samuel A. Floyd (Reference Floyd1995, p. 95) describes Signifyin(g) as ‘a way of saying one thing and meaning another; it is a reinterpretation, a metaphor for the revision of previous texts and figures’. Aspects of Signifyin(g) are at play between both versions of ‘Respect’, since Franklin's recording manipulates the content of Redding's original in the manner of a trope to comment upon it, and from which new meanings arise.

In our exploration of syllabic elasticity we have seen how the recordings function as ‘talking texts’, which goes beyond identifying Franklin's ‘Respect’ as a simple answer song and further captures the dialogic functions that emerge from the interaction of the recordings and also its rootedness in a specifically black intertextual practice (Gates Reference Gates1988, p. xxvi). Changes made to the lyrics also contribute to interpreting the song pair as ‘talking texts’. For example, in the second verse explicit dialogue and two distinct characters emerge. Here Redding sings: ‘You can do me wrong, honey, if you wanna. But only do me wrong, honey, while I am gone.’ Franklin responds: ‘I ain't gonna do you wrong while you're gone; ain't gonna do you wrong ’cause I don't wanna.' With this dialogue, the song shifts from the perspective of a male protagonist in Redding's version to a female protagonist in Franklin's version who now also demands respect. Franklin invokes an additional layer of agency through this lyrical re-authoring by stating emphatically that the reason she is faithful is because she chooses to, and not because it is expected of her. Gendered differences significantly facilitate Signifyin(g) as the recordings function as ‘talking texts’.

In addition, Gates' trope of motivated ‘rewriting the speakerly’, identified earlier with regard to melodic structure, is also at play with the significant changes in vocal delivery and lyrical content, which create Franklin's gendered performance and facilitate these black tropes of repetition and difference. The protagonist in Franklin's re-authoring of the lyrics is a woman who is faithful (with lyrics ‘I ain't gonna do you wrong while you're gone; ain't gonna do you wrong ’cause I don't wanna'), financially independent (‘Ooh, your kisses, sweeter than honey. And guess what? So is my money’), and unafraid to make demands (‘Whip it to me’; ‘a little respect … when you come home, or you might walk in and find out I'm gone’). Franklin's lyrics – an integral part of her gendered re-authoring – consciously challenge Redding, participate in a motivated rewriting of his song, and facilitate these marked changes in the subject position of the song's protagonist and the resulting dialogue that ensues between her version and Redding's.

Finally, call-and-response operates as rhetorical device on two different levels in Franklin's ‘Respect’. Within the song, localised call-and-response is apparent in Franklin's singing, which functions as a series of calls and is echoed by responses in the backing vocals. But on another level, the recording as a whole responds and challenges Redding's original, and thus can be seen as participating in a larger dialogic, intertextual call-and-response.

Authorship and authenticity

Recognising that authenticity is a contingent, ascribed, socially constructed and mediated value and understanding that what constitutes an authentic performance is entirely variable upon an artist's particular time and location, cultural context, genre conventions and listener expectations, it may be useful to understand constructions of authenticity in Franklin's ‘Respect’ as part of the meanings audiences have ascribed to her recording as well as the cultural work it performed. Many listeners have ascribed authenticity to Franklin's singing, as she participates in the soul tradition that values vocal virtuosity, and at the same time creates distance between herself and Redding through her re-authoring of ‘Respect’ to make artistic space for her success.

Plasketes (Reference Plasketes and Plasketes2010, p. 27) writes, ‘The imitation intrinsic in the act of covering in music, even with the honorable intent of homage from a discipline, is incongruent with authenticity’. However, if audiences perceive a performance of a cover song to be real, honest, genuine, serious and/or relevant, they may also ascribe authenticity to the performance. Gabriel Solis (Reference Solis2010, p. 20) argues that, however paradoxically, cover songs are a significant means by which performers establish ‘personal authenticity’. Similarly, Johan Fornäs (Reference Fornäs, Straw, Johnson, Sullivan and Friedlander1995, p. 107) writes, ‘Covers and quotations can be a superficial masquerade, but they are also a way to reflexively position oneself in certain historical contexts’. In addition, David Headlam (Reference Headlam, Marvin and Hermann1995, p. 328) argues that, in the case of Led Zeppelin, the band can rightfully claim ownership of songs that use pre-existing musical material they did not author, even songs that are considered hallmarks of their output, because they feature a set of style traits unique to Led Zeppelin. The same can be said for Franklin except that she goes beyond adding her own distinctive style traits, and entirely rewrites the melodic structure of the song and adds her own new material, too.

Furthermore, compelling performances of cover songs can significantly shape artists' personas. Michael Awkward (Reference Awkward2007, p. 20) understands ‘song covers as mechanisms through which talented singers construct and reflect their still evolving artistic and social identities’. Furthermore, Coyle (Reference Coyle, Beebe, Fullbrook and Saunders2002, p. 134) argues that, since the idea of what a cover song is has changed remarkably through the past six decades (prior to Elvis, most covers were ‘hijacked hits’), after Elvis, cover songs became a way artists shaped their identities. The most successful constructions of such identities become markers of authenticity when articulated in a way that listeners perceive as honest and genuine.

Hans Weisethaunet and Ulf Lindberg (Reference Weisethaunet and Lindberg2010, p. 465) argue that authenticity is ‘sometimes verbalised in terms like “integrity”, “honesty”, “sincerity”, “credibility”, “genuineness”, and “truthfulness”’. These characteristics align with many of the values associated with Keir Keightley's (Reference Keightley, Frith, Straw and Street2001) concept of ‘romantic authenticity’, which emphasises sincerity, honesty, originality and lyrical expressiveness as markers of authenticity (Keightley Reference Keightley, Frith, Straw and Street2001, p. 137), which some listeners have associated with Franklin's manner of singing. Weisethaunet and Lindberg (Reference Weisethaunet and Lindberg2010, p. 470) explain that in the context of ‘folkloric authenticity’, listeners value the idea of ‘truth’, which implies ‘that music expressed more than the individuality of the performer: it was taken to represent the sentiment of the social oppression of a whole group of people’. This is the aspect that especially lends authenticity to Franklin's ‘Respect’ for so many listeners – that she projects truth in her singing, representing the oppression of multiple disenfranchised groups.

Related to a type of authenticity described by Lawrence Grossberg (Reference Grossberg, Frith, Goodwin and Grossberg1993, p. 202) as ‘often linked with dance and black music, [which] locates authenticity in the construction of a rhythmic and sexual body’ and ‘constructs a fantasy of the tortured individual struggling to transcend the conditions of their inadequacy’, Weisethaunet and Lindberg's concept of ‘body authenticity’ may also be relevant to constructions of authenticity ascribed to Franklin's ‘Respect’: this category involves the idea that body and physical presence, as opposed to something more cerebral, are connected to ‘natural’ expression (acknowledging that the concept of ‘natural’ is a social fabrication) and aspects central to authentic performance, as well as having a rhythmic component that lends danceability to the music (Weisethaunet and Lindberg Reference Weisethaunet and Lindberg2010, p. 475). The authors write, ‘Peter Guralnick interprets these musical innovations in relation to “the southern dream of freedom”; with its clear roots in gospel music, soul combines the gospel “truth” and its longing for freedom with everyday danceable experiences’ (Weisethaunet and Lindberg Reference Weisethaunet and Lindberg2010, p. 475). The problem with this type of thinking about authenticity is that it tends to align with racialised essentialism, implying that black music is somehow more inherently physical, more primitive or more natural than other musics (and therefore more authentic). White people in many contexts have ascribed such ideas to black music.Footnote ⁵ Such constructions are problematic in at least two ways: First, they pigeonhole artists along racial lines, inhibiting artists and the range of personas they might wish to portray; and second, they inaccurately portray authenticity – as it is linked with racial identities – as an inherent, fixed and unchanging property.

Allan Moore (Reference Moore2002, p. 210) argues it is more useful to determine who is authenticated through a particular performance than whether or not a performance is authentic in and of itself. To this end, he describes three different ways authenticity may be ascribed based on narrative points of view: first, third and second person authenticity. According to Moore, first person authenticity occurs when the performer convinces his or her audience that the performance is pure, has integrity, is honest and does not ‘sell out’ (Moore Reference Moore2002, pp. 211–14). This type of authenticity may be located in the reception of Franklin's ‘Respect’, as many fans and critics viewed Franklin as being true to herself, projecting an image of being a strong black woman, and singing genuinely from the heart. In their discussion of a June 1968 Times article titled ‘Queen of soul’, authors Vron Ware and Les Back (Reference Ware and Back2002, p. 249) confirm, ‘Aretha was heralded as the embodiment of racial authenticity’. Journalist Phyl Garland (Reference Garland and Brackett2009) similarly describes the authenticity that many listeners ascribe to Franklin: ‘For some artists, the “soul” sound might be a mere artifice, but for Aretha Franklin, it is an element deeply imbedded in herself. She has never learned how to be pretentious enough to build a false image and deeply identifies with people on all levels who hear her music’ (Garland Reference Garland and Brackett2009, p. 206).

Moore (Reference Moore2002, p. 218) describes third person authenticity as the result of a performer successfully representing or emulating the work of someone else, usually highly regarded, as part of an established performance tradition. Brought up as a gospel singer, Franklin follows in both gospel and soul traditions and by continuing these traditions she exemplifies third person authenticity. Collins (Reference Collins1990) situates Franklin within the Black women's blues tradition and its role in ‘Afrocentric feminist epistemology’; she writes, ‘The Black women's blues tradition's history of personal expressiveness heals this either/or dichotomous rift separating emotion and intellect. […] Without emotion, Aretha Franklin's (1967) cry for “respect” would be virtually meaningless’ (Collins Reference Collins1990, pp. 215–16). Franklin's artistry grew out of several musical traditions – gospel, blues and R&B – and thus is seen by many listeners as exemplifying third person authenticity as described by Moore.

Moore's (Reference Moore2002, p. 220) final category – second person authenticity – occurs when a performer validates the experiences and truths for the individual members of his or her audience. This type of authenticity allows for artists (who may or may not be truthful to their own personal experiences, or in other words, who may or may not project also first person authenticity) perform in such a way that their songs can mean different things to different audiences, speaking to many people in some meaningful way. Franklin's recording of ‘Respect’ resonated with several different overlapping audiences in profound ways. For many women, this song became an anthem for feminism, with Franklin's celebration of female independence and freedom, intolerance of mistreatment by men, and sexual empowerment by taking control of female sexuality. For many African Americans, this song became an anthem for the Civil Rights Movement. Two years after the release of Franklin's ‘Respect’, Garland named the song the ‘new black social anthem’ and said, ‘[Franklin] spoke to everyone. The way she interpreted it – we couldn't hear it enough’ (quoted in Dobkin Reference Dobkin2004, p. 189). Nathan (Reference Nathan1999) reminds us of the historical and cultural context of the release of Franklin's ‘Respect’ in the late 1960s; he writes, ‘It is almost impossible in hindsight to recreate the kind of impact Aretha had on the world in 1967. It is almost like you just had to be there’ (Nathan Reference Nathan1999, p. 79).

In sum, the musical changes, performativity and high level of musicianship in Franklin's ‘Respect’, as well as the construction of Franklin's artistic persona as reflected in the popular press, connote values of invention (that is, creating something new from something pre-existing), truthfulness, sincerity and relevance for many listeners who ascribe authenticity to her performance from all three narrative points of view as described by Moore.

Empowerment

Dobkin (Reference Dobkin2004, p. 13) identifies sex as the key to effectiveness in Franklin's singing, especially on I Never Loved a Man the Way I Love You, the album on which ‘Respect’ appeared. He describes this album as one ‘largely about female sexual desire, a subject previously owned by the blues women of the early part of the century’. Davis (Reference Davis1998, p. 4) explains that early blues singers paved the way for ‘openly addressing both female and male sexuality’ in a way that ‘was specifically African-American’. Furthermore, Davis asserts ‘that women's blues provided a cultural space for community-building among working-class black women, and that it was a space in which the coercions of bourgeois notions of sexual purity and “true womanhood” were absent’ (Davis Reference Davis1998, p. 44). Franklin was steeped in this mode of expression as soul music in the 1960s grew out of the blues traditions of earlier decades. We learn from Davis that sexuality came to mean much more to black communities in the years after slavery was abolished; in her words, ‘the blues registered sexuality as a tangible expression of freedom’ (Davis Reference Davis1998, p. 8). Meanings ascribed to Franklin's ‘Respect’ reveal that the song adopts an identity that is not only about sexuality, but also about empowerment and ultimately freedom. In an Essence article published in 1995, Evelyn White recalls the feeling of empowerment upon hearing Franklin's ‘Respect’:

White also describes how Franklin's music allowed her to see the female role models in her life – her mother and her mother's friends – ‘as Black women with lives outside of cooking, cleaning and taking care of husbands and kids. […] I realised they had feelings, opinions and interests in matters outside their homes’ (White Reference White1995, p. 299).

At first, it may seem irreconcilable that Franklin participates within a patriarchal genre that affirms traditional gender roles while her recording has come to represent feminism of the late 1960s. This ostensible contradiction may make more sense through examining some of the feminist aspects of black female blues of the 1920s and 1930s. Davis (Reference Davis1998) explains, ‘A female narrator in a women's blues song who represents herself as entirely subservient to male desire might simultaneously express autonomous desire and a refusal to allow her mistreating lover to drive her to psychic despair’ (Davis Reference Davis1998, p. xv). Similarly, Franklin adopts the male-dominated discourse of soul music (as well as its adherence to traditional gender roles where the woman is relegated to the domestic realm and the man participates in the public realm) to subvert meaning and appropriates the genre to give voice to several feminist ideas, including sexual empowerment and self-reliance. Understanding Redding as a figure who represents a dominant voice within this genre in the 1960s, Franklin speaks within this (his) language as a means of empowerment. She must speak within the dominant discourse in order to be heard and to critique it (Keil and Feld Reference Keil and Feld1994, p. 219).

Furthermore, Franklin empowers her listeners by giving a voice to those who have been victims, silenced or marginalised within the dominant discourse. By speaking truths of and for her listeners, Franklin authenticates her performance in the sense of Moore's (Reference Moore2002, p. 220) second person authenticity. Lynn Norment (Reference Norment1998, p. 90) characterises Franklin's ‘Respect’ as ‘a personal and collective anthem not only for Aretha Franklin but for everybody living in the shadows, for abused and undervalued sisters as well as undervalued brothers, for women and men of all races who wanted, needed, had to have respect’. Franklin's envoicing of respect through her re-authoring of the song and the second person authenticity listeners ascribe to it facilitated its role as an anthem to multiple social liberation movements.

Feminism and ‘Respect’

Widespread (scholarly and non-academic) rhetoric freely associates feminism with Franklin's ‘Respect’. Writers have varying views on what feminism is, which has contributed to the song's complex relationship with feminism. Some of this discourse is problematic because it makes essentialist assumptions that are difficult to substantiate with any reputable academic feminist writings. To illustrate, Dobkin (Reference Dobkin2004) makes a general claim that ‘Respect’ is at once a feminist anthem and also overtly sexual.Footnote ⁶ This is not an unreasonable claim, yet how Dobkin reconciles his view remains problematic. He writes:

And later in his monograph, Dobkin describes Franklin as

I quote Dobkin at length because his discourse illustrates a problematic understanding of Franklin as feminist. The idea of ‘the perennial role of woman who aims to please her man’ is not aligned with feminist values. Dobkin also makes the mistake of essentialist stereotyping, implying that all women are somehow hard-wired ‘to delight [their] partners’ as part of an ‘ultrafeminine’ desire. It is inconceivable that Dobkin's ‘feminism’ is ‘modern’ or in any sense ‘progressive’. In fact, the radical feminism of the late 1960s criticised this kind of sexism that in Ellen Willis's words, ‘had distorted a so-called sexual revolution that envisioned women's sexual freedom mainly as women's right-cum-obligation to have sex on men's often exploitative terms’ (Echols Reference Echols and Willis1989, p. xii). Much of Dobkin's discourse draws upon inaccurate and oppressive stereotypes of the black woman as mother, as caretaker, as housewife, when female, black expressions of strength have been tools of necessity for survival of the spirit, as opposed to some inherent matriarchal value that all women share (Davis Reference Davis1983, pp. 27–31).

In spite of the heterogeneity within the radical feminism movement just taking shape in fall of 1967, we may identify two core ideas emerging within some strands of the movement that may have influenced Franklin at least indirectly and that her ‘Respect’ may seem to capture. First, Franklin's ‘Respect’ emphasises female sexual empowerment, which relates to the idea of advocating for sexuality as a source of pleasure for women, as some radical feminists at the time were known to do (Echols Reference Echols and Willis1989, p. 14). Second, radical feminists were firmly opposed to male hegemony (Echols Reference Echols and Willis1989, p. 5), which relates to re-authored passages that assert female agency, such as notions of financial independence (‘and guess what? So is my money’), commands (‘find out what it means’, ‘whip it to me’ and ‘sock it to me’), and the ability to stay or leave freely (‘or you might walk in … and find out I'm gone’).

What may further complicate the relationship of Franklin's ‘Respect’ to feminism in general is that the liberal and radical feminist movements of the 1960s have been criticised as movements limited to and for middle- and upper-class white women. Elizabeth V. Spelman and others have argued that these white feminist movements do not represent the interests and perspectives of all women, especially women of colour and the working class (Davis Reference Davis1983, pp. 222–44; hooks Reference hooks1984; Spelman Reference Spelman1988). The irony here lies in the idea that these predominantly white movements that adopted Franklin's recording as their anthem may have ignored the interests most significant to Franklin herself, as a black woman. However, Franklin's ‘Respect’ not only served as an anthem for those who already occupy a space of privilege, but also as, in Suzanne E. Smith's (Reference Smith1999, p. 212) words, ‘an anthem of the dispossessed’.

Because Franklin's ‘Respect’ became an anthem for multiple social liberation movements, we may understand it as embracing Deborah King's (Reference King1988) concept of ‘multiple jeopardy’, which ‘refers not only to several, simultaneous oppressions but to the multiplicative relationships among them as well’, and she argues that the effect of multiple oppressions is more than merely additive (King, Reference King1988, p. 47).Footnote ⁷ Like King, hooks (Reference hooks1984) argues that feminism needs to account for ‘the diversity of women's social and political reality’ by taking seriously ‘the inter-relatedness of sex, race, and class oppression’ (hooks Reference hooks1984, pp. 14, 25). Franklin's ‘Respect’ speaks to different people because it embodies this diversity and the intersection of inseparable categories of gender, race, class and culture. Furthermore, the persona that Franklin projects in her re-authoring of ‘Respect’ is an identity that faces multiple jeopardy, in contrast to the persona projected by Redding. This may explain in part why Franklin's ‘Respect’ became a song of liberation for multiple social movements when Redding's did not.

hooks (Reference hooks1984) describes the relation of sexism to racism:

Franklin confronts these politics head on. By projecting a protagonist who is strong, financially independent, perhaps demanding and sexually in control, she makes a statement that disallows any man, white or black, access to her female body without her permission. Franklin's statement is particularly significant given the history of sexual abuse and rape that countless black women endured at the hands of white men during slavery in the United States (Davis Reference Davis1983, pp. 3–29).

Collins (Reference Collins1990) relates the kind of respect that Franklin commands with ‘a distinctive Black feminist politic’, which includes respect for self and for others, as well as independence and self-reliance (economic and otherwise) (Collins Reference Collins1990, pp. 108–10). The spirit of this recording – in contrast to the domination hooks describes – makes it an ideal feminist anthem, if we understand feminism to strive not just for gender equality, but also liberation against racial and class oppression. The song becomes a conduit for resistance precisely because it does not draw any lines (explicitly or implicitly) between different oppressed groups as many liberation movements have. Although it may not have been Franklin's intention to create a meta-anthem against oppression, she follows hooks' (Reference hooks1990) description of what it takes to resist ‘politics of domination, to eradicating sexism and racism’, which is a person who ‘understands the importance of not promoting an either/or competition between the oppressive systems’ (hooks Reference hooks1984, p. 64). Finally, Franklin's status as a black woman, as a victim of domestic abuse,Footnote ⁸ and as a participant in a genre that has functioned as a discursive space for the working class – all of which situate her identity in multiple jeopardy – facilitates her ability to stand against multiple forms of oppression in her re-authoring of ‘Respect’.