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

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

O. Kay.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

"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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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

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.

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

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.

---