Speeches That Stick

By Savannah Hubbard

"Four score and seven years ago...". When the opening lines to the Gettysburg Address were first uttered in 1863, only 15,000 people were present to hear it. Considering the Gettysburg Address is one of, if not THE most well known speech in American history, many can say they know it, but who can say they heard it delivered by the author? No one alive today. The original audio of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address could only be visually replicated through writing and print. I wondered what it is about certain speeches that escalated them to fame in a time before audible replication was possible.

In Listening to Nineteenth Century America, Mark M. Smith recounts a speech given by Angelina Grimké to the Massachusetts legislature in 1838. Her abolitionist speech is remembered for the authentic retelling of slavery she was able to aurally convey. Grimké's "aural depiction and its authenticity were replayed via print and readers could now hear, imagine, and reimagine what Grimké had heard and wanted them to hear." (2015:2). I would argue that no level of reading or imagining is as effective as actually listening to a speech the way it was intended to be consumed: audibly.

This is possible for more recent speeches by Franklin D. Roosevelt or Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., whose speeches can be heard within the seconds it takes to complete a search on YouTube. This question comes from my interest in famous figures of the past. It can be a struggle to imagine people like Abraham Lincoln as real humans that actually lived, walked, and delivered speeches. My thought process was that perhaps if we could still hear the voices of such people, they wouldn't feel so far removed in the past.

Unfortunately, the phonograph was invented seven years after Lincoln's death, making his Gettysburg Address one of the few famous pieces of modern verbal history that could not be audibly recorded. It made me wonder: does the existence of or lack of auditory records make a difference in how we interpret them?

Did the print revolution cause the loss of emphasis on the auditory pre-radio? In another article by Mark M. Smith titled Echo, he states that if the print revolution truly did emphasize the visual and denigrate the auditory, then "printed evidence and the sensory perceptions recorded by contemporaries constitute the principal medium through which we can access the sounds of the past and their meanings." (2001:62). Smith believes the only way we can interpret the sounds of history is through the written accounts left for us. The issue I have with this is that in my opinion, no piece of writing, no matter how descriptive and detailed it may be will equal an actual audio record of the sound.

By the early 20th century, European monarchies were being frequently overthrown, so a good public image for the royal family of England was crucial. They used the convenience of the radio to communicate with the people. The radio created a new emphasis on the auditory. When King George VI ascended the throne in 1936 he was forced to overcome a lifelong speech impediment. As king, delivering broadcasted speeches is a duty. He began seeing a speech therapist to improve his stammer.

Above is the recording of King George VI's 1939 radio broadcast detailing Britain's involvement with World War II. After his death, historians generally regard him as a good wartime king and is admired for the challenges he eventually overcame. Does the oration of his speech here alter the message?

If you Google search the qualities of a good speech today, you get many of the same answers: nonverbal communication is key, scripted speeches are stiff, impressions are made in the first seven seconds, and remember to smile. Ironically these all pertain to visual aspects. Ideally, a speech should be about what is said, not how the speaker looks when it is said. However, as visual and audio technology has progressed, the standards of a "good" speech have altered.

Using the previous speeches as evidence, I believe that as communication technology evolved the methods of speech delivery evolved with it. There was no way to audibly replicate Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. It could only be shared and distributed through writing to the literate. There was no way to audibly replicate the original oration, so emphasis has been placed on the rhetoric of those 272 words. This practice made the power of the Gettysburg Address found in what Lincoln said, not how.

Fast forward 100 years and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. expresses his hopeful dream during the march on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in 1963. The rhetoric of his speech was amplified by his oration, a skill developed by his experience as a Southern Baptist preacher. Another successful aspect of "I Have a Dream" was the powerful visual of MLK delivering his speech in front of the Lincoln Memorial to a gathered crowd of 250,000 and millions more via television.

Today there are dozens of platforms to get our auditory messages out into the world for hearing. With platforms such as Ted Talks, whose motto is "Ideas Worth Spreading", we no longer need the status of being a president, king, or activist to get people to listen to us. Podcasts and YouTube provide the ability to reach millions without leaving the house. In this particular Ted Talk, Nancy Duarte discusses "The Secret Structure of Great Talks". She finds patterns within MLK's "I Have a Dream" and the speech Steve Jobs gave for the first iPhone launch in 2007.

With these social and technological developments, it is safe to say that the qualities of a good speech have evolved beyond Aristotle's 2,000 year old ethos, logos, and pathos. After analyzing the previous speeches regarded as the "best", my question has shifted. For speeches of today to be effective, must they not only be heard, but read and seen to process the full impact?