Some months ago my Aunt Bea urged me to take my elderly and ailing Aunt Em’s mink coat. Bea said that it’s gorgeous, in perfect condition, and insured for thousands of dollars. When I said that I don’t wear fur, Bea pressed on with, “It will fit you perfectly.” I continued to decline the offer. Her last plea with me was, “But if you don’t take it, what I’m I going to do with it?” I suggested donating it to a church rummage sale. That’s when she accepted that I really wanted nothing to do with it.
Bea didn’t offer me any diamonds or jewelry but it wouldn’t have mattered because I don’t like or wear either.
Yet, there’s one person in the world that I truly enjoy seeing decked out in diamonds and fur. The Queen of Soul.
Great lady of soul! I adore her duet with Annie Lennox (sorry about the ad at the start):
That’s great. (Much better lyrics that “Natural Woman”) Thank you for posting it.
Furs and diamonds, who cares, just the traditional attributes of American wealth. What interests me is the meaning of ‘a natural woman’. I don’t get it (maybe because I’m a man?). Is there anything like ‘an unnatural woman’? Explanation? I must be thick. And it seems the song was written by a woman.
Furs and diamonds, who cares, just the traditional attributes of American wealth.
True. Maybe that’s why I like it that Aretha Franklin has diamonds and furs and knows how to flaunt them without apology.
As for the song — it’s really well within the early to mid-sixties love song category. Which was what Carole King was getting recognized for in those years. There was an added to dimension to Franklin picking it up in 1967 because that was the time of “the natural.” When AAs were claiming their identity and that “Black is Beautiful.” A bit later, as the feminist movement grew, it was adopted as an anthem because “natural” just wasn’t what was expected of American women through the ’50s and ’60s. The lyrics, other than “feel like a natural woman,” didn’t fit but they are easily ignored and the melody is nice. If not for Aretha singing and recording it, it would have been considered a bit old-fashioned in ’67.
Thanks. Evidently no one knows what it means. Maybe it’s just a feel good, nonsense lyric that suits the melody. And as for the furs and diamonds, A. Franklin can/could sing like no one else so she is in a position to act as if she might really care less about the traditional, outdated attributes of rich US women—while she is artistically and financially in a position to put down those who might still care, while possibly still caring herself. It’s not important that I find it childish from such an iconic, old musical artist.
RESPECT her life and times. Sort of like Dolly Parton when she was very young and on a rare trip to town saw for the first time a woman all decked out in heels, glitter, and glitz and instantly fell in love and vowed to dress like that when she grew up. As she has said, “It costs a lot of money to look this trashy.”
Aretha makes enough statements through her music. She’s entitled to have a traditional diva fashion sense. And, unlike most women decked out in diamonds and furs, she earned the scratch to buy it and that it an important statement.
Good for her! Apart from all the attributes, the performance was startling, especially considering her age. Of course she was/is one of the greatest ever in her particular area, don’t get me wrong. At least one other old star I can think of went out and played the vamp in her old age, she tore down the house: Marlene Dietrich.
Also have to give her props for accompanying herself at the piano. That’s multi-tasking!
That was literally stunning.
You reminded me of the time that decided to go see a movie because I figured how bad could it be with a cast of David Bowie, Kim Novak, and Marlene Dietrich? As it turned out pretty freaking awful
Oh God, I remember hearing about that misbegotten creation. That is some bad, bad casting, eh? Not as bad as this, though:
Had that one not been before my time, John Wayne wouldn’t have gotten me into the theater.
Can’t recall anything from that Bowie movie which suggests zero, even a bad bit, worth remembering to joke about later. While my opinion may differ today, still recall seeing Godard’s “Sympathy for the Devil” that led some in the audience to throw popcorn at the screen which seemed like an appropriate response. Particularly since getting to the theater for the limited run wasn’t easy or inexpensive.
Just read a bit about “Sympathy For The Devil”- hadn’t heard/read much about the movie. I’ve experienced provocative art before, and understand that Godot threw bombs. Seems like it would be fascinating to observe the Stones working the song through in the studio until it became a masterpiece, but that’s easy for me to say without paying for a ticket and investing hours of time. And the Black Panther/revolutionary presentations sound like they were done in an odd way.
I’ve only seen a few movies at the theatre which have angered me. One that comes to mind is “Harvard Man” by James Toback. That guy is a true provocateur and I’ve enjoyed most of his provocations, but this movie had a bunch of really fucked-up ideas which are emphasized by an ending which dumps the audience into a terrible place, and for no worthwhile reason.
As I said, “Sympathy” might be more interesting today. iirc, it had a watching grass grow quality back then.
Can’t recall a movie that angered me — but that could be a faulty memory or that I’ve managed to avoid such movies (they tend not to be well received). Although, “Wolf of Wall Street” so grossed me out that it came close to infuriating me.
“Harvard Man” got mixed reviews, as do almost all Toback movies. I didn’t let the bad reviews discourage me; I can see he’s not for everybody. For example, I loved “Fingers” for the raw and honest ways it dealt with the moral challenges of its oddball premise, but I wouldn’t recommend it to others.
Sounded like “Wolf of Wall Street” was treading on somewhat similar ground, except that I understand it thinly fictionalized people who really did do a bunch of damaging and offensive things in real life. With that, I could imagine the extra difficulty in receiving the cultural critique within the satire of “Wolf.”
Lesley Gore’s You Don’t Own Me is from the same period (1963) and genre.
From a not so good movie (IMO but others like it very much) but a great closing scene of mature women briefly recapturing their youth (and overlooking the saccharin sexism in top 40 music of that time).
Aretha had fun with the song here:
She’s truly a great performer. I’ve always loved this clip of hers (and many others).
Thanks for all this, Marie3.
Here’s one of my very favorite recordings of a live music show. The whole concert is great; select any song and you can feel the reciprocal joy between the performers and the audience. And Aretha’s talent is unworldly and earthy at the same time; she’s singing so free and easy while summoning so much: