Does Any One Else Think Esparza is an actor only?- Page 2

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/14/07 at 9:46am

I have a soft spot for sort of wildly ridiculous singing voices. I love imperfections, because in the case of many theater actors without standard legit voices, it makes for a much more raw connection with the audience, IMO. That's not to disparage legit theater singers by ANY means -- it's just a personal preference, and I love distinctive voicies. And I agree with those who like his because it's so expressive. But anyway, given that bias, I am certainly not in the best place to comment. I love Esparza's voice, but you won't see me getting defensive when people talk about him sounding like a goat.... because sometimes he does. And I love it. He's an actor who sings, though -- and an actor first.

Anyway, to the person who started this topic, if you can, see him live. For whatever it's worth, he gets the hype for a reason. He is an extraordinary talent. He's given two of the most moving performances I have ever seen -- and one was in a non-singing role. As much as I enjoy hearing him sing, I think I might like him better in straight plays. I don't think he's an "easy" performer to like because his acting encompasses a lot of things that can quickly turn people off -- he chews scenery, etc. -- but I just quite simply find his work incredibly powerful. And obviously you have to have seen him on stage to make judgments about how that would come across.

Updated On: 8/14/07 at 09:46 AM

[Stewpot]

Posted: 8/14/07 at 10:13am

People, we are talking about a Broadway PERFORMER here, not just an actor OR a singer.

He has a way of making discreet eye contact with his audience that it really seems like he is singing to you personally. (Did anyone else notice this, or was he really just singing to me? **blush**) His performance in Company was outstanding.

The point is, Company was very memorable for me, and it certainly wasn't because of the elaborate set (column). A person would buy the cast album to be able to relive that memorable moment.

If you are looking for music to dance to on your ipod, buy a Timerlake album.

[Kringas]

Posted: 8/14/07 at 10:20am

O. Kay.

[Lavieboheme3090]

Posted: 8/14/07 at 10:22am

"I love imperfections, because in the case of many theater actors without standard legit voices, it makes for a much more raw connection with the audience, IMO."

Emcee I completely agree with you, Broadway has always been a place where people with unique voices have been heard, because it is about connection to the piece and being able to draw the audience in. Look a musical theater legends Bernadette Peters, Patti Lupone, Ethel Merman, and Rita Morris they don't have beuatiful voices, but voices that pack a powerful punch, and you feel like you are watching real human beings.

[JBSinger]

Posted: 8/14/07 at 10:24am

I've seen him live in a couple things and found him pretty fantastic. His voice definitely fits certain material better than others (like everyone). For example, I heard him sing "Franklin Shepard Inc" at Lincoln Center and that fit him very well, but then later in the concert he sang some George material from Sunday in the Park... and it just didn't sit right in his sound.

But like many here in this thread, I agree that his voice isn't always pretty, but its generally pretty interesting and exciting. Love him on Company, Tick Tick, and Hair.

[kellybean2]

Posted: 8/14/07 at 10:26am

"I love imperfections, because in the case of many theater actors without standard legit voices, it makes for a much more raw connection with the audience, IMO."

If you can interpret a song, it doesn't matter if you have a "legit" voice or not - it's about connecting with the material. Well-trained voices are just that - well-trained voices. I prefer a well-trained song interpreter to an untrained one who makes me worry for his/her vocal health. I want to enjoy a performance for the performance sake - not be taken out of it because I'm concerned for the performer's cord damage.

ETA: Since when don't Bernadette Peters and Patti LuPone have beautiful voices? Updated On: 8/14/07 at 10:26 AM

[aspiringactress]

Posted: 8/14/07 at 10:49am

I'm gonna go with Emcee on this one. His voice has a raw quality to it, which I connect to. He does with his voice what many great actors do with their performances. They leave themselves alone. They are real. So sometimes his voice is unpleasant to listen to. But I don't think anyone in this discussion could truthfully claim that life itself is never unpleasant to listen to. If those bleating sounds come from emotion, I connect to them.

[ashley0139]

Posted: 8/14/07 at 10:50am

They're both acquired tastes. I like Ernest Hemingway as an author, my mother does not. I love Raul Esparza and Julia Murney's singing voices, you may not. I do not think it says anything against you or the performer's talent level themselves... its just personal opinions.

I totally agree.

And of course it's an opinion. People can think what they like. I was more referring to the fact that someone said he sounded like a goat and offered no other thoughts or constructive ideas. I know more than anyone that people like Raul and Julia are kind of "love them or hate them," but I also think that whenever this subject comes up (every other day) and people say they sound like a goat it gets redundant, childish, and immature. It's not hard to come up with a better argument.

[kellybean2]

Posted: 8/14/07 at 10:55am

Why do so many here believe that good training means you can't show true emotion? One does not preclude the other, if the talent is there. It's a lovely, romantic sentiment to believe otherwise, but it's not reality.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/14/07 at 12:01pm

I don't know too much about vocal technique, but I've heard the idea that... if you're TOO focused on technicalities, you can risk losing the natural emotional pull.

[Jane2]

Posted: 8/14/07 at 12:06pm

"He can't sing."

LOL, this is just funny.

Anyway, my thoughts on Raul? One of the best performers (singing AND acting) I have ever come across. His career reflects that.

[kellybean2]

Posted: 8/14/07 at 12:11pm

But see, with good training and technique, you're NOT focused on it when you're performing. That's the training/work process that prepares you for the performing. You should be beyond focusing on technique by the time you're onstage. You focus on it in your lessons, in your warmups, to prepare you for not having to think about it in performance. Same with acting and dancing.
Updated On: 8/14/07 at 12:11 PM

[Dirty_Rotten_Guy]

Posted: 8/14/07 at 12:15pm

Actually, I find him moreso a singer than an actor

I really enjoy listening to his voice, but find his acting pretty...shallow, and just mediocre.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/14/07 at 12:19pm

Right. With GOOD training and technique all AROUND. I was talking about VOCAL technique. You can have the best training and technique in the world, but that does not automatically make you a good PERFORMER. A singer can be trained through all the motions and then some and still be missing that integral spark. I'm not saying there are no technical singers that connect the way some of the more distinctively "off" voices do -- that would be a ridiculous claim. I'm saying that if a singer focuses too much on technique, that can overshadow other very important factors of a performance. I'm sorry, but perfect technique is not enough; you've got to have way more.

You find his acting shallow? What have you seen him in? I can understand many of the reasons why people don't like him, but seriously, what shows were YOU watching? I love his work, even when it becomes sort of over the top -- but "shallow" is the last term I'd use to describe it.

Updated On: 8/14/07 at 12:19 PM

[kellybean2]

Posted: 8/14/07 at 12:24pm

I never said any of that. You seemed to be saying that having no training makes you automatically a better song interpreter. As if training is a detriment to a performer. Personally, I think vocal health is important, so a career can last into midlife and beyond. I've said my piece, I'm not going to go back and forth and around and around this.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/14/07 at 12:29pm

You seemed to be saying that having no training makes you automatically a better song interpreter. As if training is a detriment to a performer.

Well, I wasn't. So that's why I was clarifying. I was saying that it CAN be. Not that it IS, as in that it happens with ALL technical singers. I'm not going back and forth just for the sake of it -- I just don't want to appear as though I'm saying something I'm not. I get what you're saying, and now I have the right to clarify a misinterpretation.

Frankly, if Raúl were really doing substantial amounts of damage, he wouldn't be able to sustain his voice through eight shows a week in as many musicals as he has. He wouldn't sound as strong as he does, he'd miss a lot more performances, etc.

Updated On: 8/14/07 at 12:29 PM

[VIETgrlTerifa]

Posted: 8/14/07 at 12:31pm

I personally find his voice a bit obnoxious, though not as much as Hugh Jackman and the original Bobby, Dean Jones.

Just based on his singing alone and from what I've seen on clips, I never understood the hype.

Also, when does having good technique = cookie cutter? Isn't it possible to be trained and yet still have a distinctive sound? Although, I do agree somewhat with the argument that sometimes those who are trained do sacrifice character (I think of Audra McDonald when she sings), I really think it's ridiculous that some are actually trying to discourage it in order to defend Raul's sound.

[dancingthrulife04]

Posted: 8/14/07 at 12:35pm

If I'm understanding Em correctly, then I do agree with her. Sometimes if your focus is TOO much on technique, you can lose some of the emotion of the song. That's not to say that you shouldn't have the training (because you should), but you also need to be able to seem natural.

That said, I love Raul Esparza's voice. I'm going to disagree with DRG, though, because I didn't find his acting "shallow" at all.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/14/07 at 12:35pm

If I'm included in that last sentence, VIETgrlTerifa, I'm not "discouraging it," and I'm sorry if it looks like I am. Like I said in an earlier post, while I can't speak for others, for me, it's really just a matter of personal preference. Most of the singers I like are not classically trained, but that doesn't mean I think it's a bad thing. I didn't meant to come across as though I was "discouraging" it, by any means.

I'd also like to denote the difference between classical training, and training period. Classical training is what I'm referring to when I'm talking about personal preference -- but just because I don't prefer classically trained voices doesn't mean I don't think training of SOME sort is important. It's necessary if you want to keep your voice healthy. That's a given.

Updated On: 8/14/07 at 12:35 PM

[Jane2]

Posted: 8/14/07 at 12:40pm

"but "shallow" is the last term I'd use to describe it."

I agree-if anything, Raul could be considered just the opposite.

[keen on kean]

Posted: 8/14/07 at 12:46pm

I don't agree with the earlier post that equated apparent effort with bad technique. With a strenuous song and a high emotional pitch, the human body reacts with the typical fight-or-flight adrenaline reaction and there is nothing training can do to stop it. Ever watch Pavarotti sing? The facial flush, the veins in the forehead, the perspiration (made worse by his weight problem) - some people may hide it better than others but it is physically stressful to sing (in fact, it is stressful to speak - your blood pressure rises measurably just carrying on a conversation in your living room). I don't discourage vocal training either, but there is a physiological limit to how "easy" you can make the act of singing.

[humbugfoto]

Posted: 8/14/07 at 1:17pm

There’s been a lot of talk tossed around in this thread about technique and training and, well, generalizations about singers and actors.

I think a point that has been missed is that Raúl is the exception to all these rules and generalizations. There’s been a great deal of trying to find a way to explain what he does, what he sounds like, by using standard terms, terms that could be applied to the majority of singers and actors out there. But Raúl is such startling talent that I just don’t believe you can define him by those rules.

Forgive me, I know I’m going to explain this badly, but here it is: I don’t see him as a singer, I see him as an actor who happens to have a remarkable voice. But that voice is simply another facet of his acting ability. He’s acting with his singing voice, in the same way he acts with his speaking voice, and with his hands, his face, his eyes, his entire body. I honestly don’t think you can separate his singing ability from the rest of his acting ability.

That being said, I find his voice one of the most astonishing things I’ve ever heard in my life. It is a powerful, stunning, shocking voice. But it is not a pretty voice, by any stretch, although he has the ability to make pretty sounds. But he also has the ability to make harsh, horrible sounds when the text and the music require it. To me, that’s as much, if not more, about acting than it is singing.

[misschung]

Posted: 8/14/07 at 1:22pm

I agree with you, humbug. I think his singing voice is an extension of his acting - you put it perfectly.

Ever watch Pavarotti sing? The facial flush, the veins in the forehead, the perspiration

Thank you, I was waiting for someone to mention him. The best classically trained singers still exhibit some sort of visible response while singing. There are those pitches that you can reach for perfectly, approach from "the top," etc that will still cause your body to react. Add to that the emotional intensity behind some of these songs, and to me you've got Raul. Not that he's trained, but I think that a lot of what you see on stage isn't his struggling to sing, it's his experiencing what he's singing.

Updated On: 8/14/07 at 01:22 PM

[Jane2]

Posted: 8/14/07 at 1:24pm

"I find his voice one of the most astonishing things I’ve ever heard in my life"

AMEN! If anyone needs proof, there's a way to see and hear him do Petrified from Taboo.

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 8/14/07 at 1:35pm

I 100% agree with humbug. You completely summed it up. He does not approach singing as a singer; he approaches it as an actor with one more tool to use in his performance. He is one of the few performers I have heard that clearly sounds different in every show. So much of the character is in his voice that you can hear a 30-second clip and understand a lot about the character.

I don't think he is the greatest singer in the world. I don't think all trained singers sound exactly the same. But I would rather listen to Raúl act in song than the greatest classical singer in the world singing blandly.