Hi Michael,
As we both know, the Swedish/Italian school is based off of the premise of singing naturally and freely, and employs Old World principles of singing without forcing and making an artificial sound with the voice, principles which are preached in modern voice teaching but not to the fullest degree. As such, not all modern singers – classical or contemporary – have the benefit of practicing and applying technique that is completely spot-on as far as good singing goes.
We discussed in a conversation the young “popera” singer, Josh Groban, who is now on the verge of releasing a new album. Although he is popular in the music community for his beautiful, mellifluous voice, he isn’t exactly the best model when it comes to straight-up technique. Even though he is purportedly getting a “legit” classical training, his singing seems to have gotten worse over time. He has been studying with the same [famous] teacher for nearly a decade now and he should be better than ever, but he’s not, so the only explanation must be that the technique he is being taught is missing something important, or is encumbering him with something detrimental.
Here are two videos of him singing in the studio.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm7rDB2keio
While he has a naturally-unique voice, the technical side of his singing isn’t as fantastic as his natural instrument. He goes off-pitch quite a bit and many times his voice has a “hissy” quality to it. Also, he never seems to do a perfect job of bridging his light mechanism with his lower register (and it’s not always for stylistic purposes, either).
Judging by those videos and the general sound of his voice, what would you say he’s doing right or wrong?
All answers are appreciated.
——————————————————————————————————-
Thanks for your question. The “popera” singers in general are difficult to discuss because they have very devoted fans as well as detractors. The detractors often come from the classical singing world, and they make valid criticisms. But as has been discussed before, criticizing singers that have a loyal following can stir up strong animosity.
Having said that, and conceding that these singers bring enjoyment to many people worldwide, it is obvious that achieving optimal vocal function is not at the top of their list of objectives. Unfortunately, because of their global exposure, they become the representation of classical singing for many. One benefit is they may introduce classical singing to people who then investigate other, and better, singers.
Bringing our attention more specifically to your questions about Josh Groban. I have been observing his singing pretty much since his debut. He was a gifted natural singer. The story is he was studying with the famous SLS founder, Seth Riggs, who introduced him to Super-Producer David Foster with some demo recordings. Foster started using him as a rehearsal singer for various productions, including the Grammy Awards standing in for Andrea Bocelli. After a while Foster signed him to a recording contract and he became a huge seller. More details can be found at Wikipedia here.
He was not great technically at that time, he was also only 17. But I agree that he has deteriorated vocally over the decade he has been publicly performing. I had heard a rumor that he was no longer working with Seth Riggs, but I have no way of knowing if it is true. That could explain some of the decline.
You ask “what is he doing right or wrong?” The main problem that I can identify is the same one that most of us are afflicted with. A lack of coordination in the glottal adjustment that determines the nature of the source vibration. When the larynx is not conditioned to optimize the glottal adjustment many of the vocal problems that we commonly observe can appear.
The ones that I hear in Groban are an unstable/raised larynx, poor breath control, nasality from air escaping into the resonator, inconsistent pitch, and register separation. As a pop singer one can get away with these. But I think the thing that frustrates his detractors is people associate him with classical singing. And in classical singing these faults are a big problem.
What does he do right? In my opinion not much. The biggest I guess would be is sell records. Barnes & Noble named him the #1 Best Selling Artist of All Time on Barnes & Noble in 2007. So he does have a lot of fans. I would have to say that is something right. He has charisma, and he does sing with a sincere expression.
But whenever I hear him on TV singing, which seems to happen all the time, I listen in awe to his incredibly poor vocal coordination. There are a lot of pop singers with poor coordination. But I think I prefer just about all of them over Josh Groban because they are not pretending to be classically trained. They have an excuse for not being able to sing on pitch, which many do better than Mr. Groban. (Sorry to be so harsh)
Louise, thank you for your sincere and well-thought out response. Unfortunately I cannot allow a link to an outside site. That would be considered spam. But I don’t want it misconstrued to be me removing counter-opinions. So please feel free to post your response in a comment here.
I have no problem with you liking Josh Groban, or defending his honor. I believe that he touches many people with his singing. Our discussion was intended to focus on his vocal function for the purpose of learning. It was started by a question from a fan of his that is worried about the decline of his vocal resources. It is always hard to discuss singers objectively without touching a nerve with the fans. I personally don’t care for his singing and prefer many other pop singers over him. Actually, on the other hand, I do like Andrea Bocelli. Even with his faults.
But those are my opinions that I have a right to just as you have a right to yours about Josh. But it is hard to separate a discussion of vocal function and what might be wrong with that from the love and admiration of a singer’s fans. Hopefully you can see that even if someone has a poor functioning voice, which can affect the long-term health of an instrument, they can still give performances that move the audience. And that is what we are discussing here.
Readers of this site are interested in learning and understanding the natural balanced use of the voice. Sometimes it helps to see and hear examples that represent when that is off. I just describe and explain what I hear. It is not meant as a “slam” on anyone or to say I am the supreme knower of good singing. I am just trying to share what I have observed and learned with others who may benefit from my experience. I apologize for offending you, but I stand by my observations.
Thanks.
“I think it’s safe to say that Josh Groban’s teacher is slowly killing the young singer’s voice”
Really? This is very frightening to read these comments. I’m not going to dare argue or put my two cents in because I am not a professional singer by any means.
It just would seem to me that Josh (or perhaps someone close to him) would recognize this being surrounded by “professionals” or someone that would have a clue about this type of stuff you are all speaking of. Unless Josh and his team are out to just sell records? I’ve wondered about this with his latest moves these past few years.
I wrote a response here:
Website link removed by VocalWisdom.com
Thank you for posting my thoughts…
Considering how long and often Josh Groban has been studying with the same teacher, he should be getting better all the time, but he’s getting worse. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that he and Sarah Brightman sound bad these days. I hate to be so harsh in regard to these two popera singers and their voice teacher, but considering what many of us have observed and read, I think it’s safe to say that Josh Groban’s teacher is slowly killing the young singer’s voice.
Thanks for the clarification, Mary Beth. Mel, I have often wondered in general what effect removing tonsils has on the voice. Obviously in the short-term there is swelling and such that will make moving the throat uncomfortable. But long-term, after healing, I don’t know. I remember talking to a choir-mate when I was a freshman in college who had his tonsils removed. He claimed he lost his falsetto, but what he meant was he still had those notes they just didn’t sound like falsetto anymore.
I guess the bottom line is I don’t have any first-hand experience with it and I haven’t heard of any wide ranging study, so I don’t know. I would think that it shouldn’t have a negative effect if we are doing things correctly. But there is probably a difference that needs to be gotten used to.
Yes, having a vocal coach travel with you all of the time would make you think he would be on top of his game.
Actually, Mel, Josh Groban had his tonsils out prior to 2003. He mentioned it during the taping of his first PBS special, Josh Groban in Concert. Apparently, the tonsillectomy was performed prior to that. The special aired in 2002. I wouldn’t think that would have affected his voice.
Josh Groban had an elective tonsillectomy in 2003. Could that have affected his voice?
P.S: It is correct that David Romano is his vocal coach. As a matter of fact, David is part of his entourage and travels with Josh all over the world. I’d think that having Mr. Romano as part of his crew, he’d get voice lessons all the time.
Yes, this is true. He has taught himself that he should sing everything through his nose. Which is a perfect example of what I was talking about in one of my recent posts about confusing cause and effect. It is a mis-interpretation of using the nasal passages as a resonator. He is using a constriction of the throat to “place” the tone inside the nose to create the effect of good resonance. If he doesn’t do that it is breathy. That is exactly what I’m talking about. The larynx is not doing what it is supposed to. If it was, by producing a complete vibration, the tone would resonate in the nasal passages all by itself. But it would not sound nasal like it does now. It would just be a natural result of the proper action that causes it.
Yes, I saw this and though it was very funny. Thanks for adding it.
See, there’s another recent example. I don’t really get why he uses that overly-bright, unpleasant sound. It’s almost as though he is taking the concept of “forward placement” too far.
Upon listening to his recent music more closely, I’ve noticed that most of the time when he’s NOT using the bright/edgy sound, he’s singing somewhat breathy. The airy sound is more pleasant to the ear, but neither of them is really balanced.
Michael,
This Josh Groban “joke” is quite fun to watch too.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Axzxe1a78E&feature=channel
Melody
Thanks for this. Yes, it gives us a more current and accurate example to go by.
Here’s another video of Josh Groban singing the Brazilian song, except in a live setting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwsIqSYO49k
He goes off-pitch quite a bit in this performance, but I think it gives a closer look at what he does while singing, which provides opportunity to analyze what he’s doing wrong.
Yes, but functionally, her voice is on a much higher level then, at least it seems to me.
Even though the vowels are over modified to the rounded ones when she sang classical, as she was probably aming at sounding as dark as possible, but still not disorting the basic production of tone which seems more or less good and free untrapped with many constrictions one can see later, at least to me, correct me if I’m wrong, she “only” sacrifised diction to get that.
But when she sang pop back then it also sounded much more free and natural.
Later in her career she started to over-darken, not only by modifiying the vowel to dark (what disorted diction), but also artificially imitating a dark tone. That seems functionally completely wrong.
But yes, the spread production now is quite obvious and somehow problems which one finds in the case of Groban now are also present in her singing, maybe due to same teacher. And interestingly others in the genre, such as Westenra. I was thinking that it maybe has something to do with trying to sound “young”, or what they believe that sound should be, in any case, trying to get a tone, not natural for the voice. Or maybe in a case of Brightman, singing a tessitura higher than what would be natural to her now.
These examples from Sarah Brightman are funny in a way. As a younger woman, she seemed to be looking for a “rounded” classical tone, and for that she used an excessively small and rounded mouth opening – I actually hear her singing “Pio Ioso” instead of “Pie Jesu”… Then as she got older, and had more success singing electronic/pop music, she goes for that weak breathy tone that in pop is always associated with a supposedly sweet voice. She has also changed her mouth position to the so-called “smile”, showing all of her front teeth, and as a result, all the vowels that previousy sounded like “o” now sound like “e”.
On Sarah Brightman’s own website but also here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsLw-LbbZLE , a singer also mentioned earlier here, you can actually see a very short video clip of her singing lesson with David Romano. It doesn’t show that much, but I think for someone who understands, he’ll see enough of what is being done. Fascinating, on that album, the one before it and all live performances after it, her singing changed for the worse drastically.
At first being a great fan of Brightman, but also Groban, I was always fascinated by the fact that singers such as them, before, used to actually sound good with a potential to evolve to great and in a period of few years detoriate so much and remaining ignorant about it. One can only ask do they ever listen to themselves or self analyze what they do or how they sound?
When one looks at this, recorded in 1994 I believe at the same time as her album Fly where she vocally sounds superior, at least to me, to all her other albums and probably all the singers in this genre, it’s actually hard to believe that this is her singing, but it is an excellent, but also very sad example….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TL5FSZ6VBg
And a decade or so after it this happens…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFK0ggZEXqM
…One can only stand in shock and aks oneself what the hell happened there? What needs to happen that a singer with obviously a very beautiful voice and quite good technique over a decade changes so drastically to sound worse, sing with less beauty and ability than ever in their life and yet, remain ignorant about the problem? I guess listening to others, and not yourself…
In the clip I earlier mentioned you can see David Romano say to Sarah Brightman “excellent”. And the fact that everyone, based on some earlier image you created, still keeps claping after everything you sing, no matter how bad it sounds and you sell records like crazy, plus you have a fanatical fanbase, you in a way I think loose the touch with reality and can’t rationally judge yourself and what you do anymore.
If I think from my own perspective…If all the people around me were telling me how amazing I sound and audiences still react fanatically to everything I sing, plus I made tons of money from my records…Maybe I would also loose the sense of self criticism and analyticity I believe to be neccessary when doing anything with your voice. It’s hard to say until you’re in the situation. But having in mind examples such as this one I believe help one to stay on the track…
It is truly a shame that I have to be so critical of my favorite singer, but there really is no way around the fact that Josh Groban’s singing really isn’t very great from a functional perspective. This can only mean that his music is going to keep sounding worse with each album unless he manages to find a vocal technician who can help him recover his voice (and even that could take years of reconditioning, which simply wouldn’t work if he’s being called up every other week to do a TV appearance; a lengthy break from touring and recording would be necessary).
It really isn’t hard to realize that Groban really isn’t that good as far as singing overall. Less than a year ago, I went to see a production of Wicked at the Orpheum in San Francisco. I kid you not, every single one of the people singing on the stage sounded better than Josh Groban. The tone quality was great and the pitch was almost flawless. All of this was sung live. Now, granted, the singers used amplification, but they pulled off their parts between than Josh Groban did in Chess. I think it’s good marketing and a naturally-unique voice that makes Josh sell so many records, but I have a feeling that eventually he’s going to choke on his own voice and have to stop singing. Whether he’ll find a good teacher and eventually make a comeback, only time will tell.
As for the Speech Level Singing method, I really can’t say much for it, except that I have yet to see a good practitioner of the method who wasn’t already talented or trained classically. Somehow I doubt that it will build a great voice from the ground up. As I said in another post, a proper classical training (unlike what Groban is receiving) is the way to go if one wants to sing convincingly. However, SLS isn’t what has caused Josh Groban’s decline – he was switched to David Romano (another big-name teacher) far too early for anyone to determine if SLS was making him better or worse. But if the proof is in the pudding, I think it’s safe to say that whatever he’s being taught currently isn’t doing him a whole lot of good.
Thanks for the assessments, Joseph. Good job. Bea, excellent points. I thought of something else yesterday after I finished the post. When I first heard Josh Groban I commented that he sounded like a good high-school choir singer. Which is basically what he was since he was 17. But not something that belonged on the radio/TV/albums. I was stunned to see how many people wanted to hear a “good high-school choir singer”. As the years passed he has turned into a bad high-school choir singer. He has never been a professional singer of any style. I can’t believe how many albums he has sold with the mediocre product he presents. I think he hides behind the illusion of being a classical-pop singer to distract from the fact that he is not actually a good classical singer OR a good pop singer.
But I will say at the same time everyone has the right to do whatever they want as far as style and what they perform. Even a good classical artist doesn’t “owe” anyone, or even “the art”. They can do as they please as far as I’m concerned. That is the artist’s choice. I don’t have much comment on that. I am concerned about the functioning of the voice. And that is not about trying to sound good or like something. It is about successfully fulfilling your intention without harming the voice. And this is accomplished by using the voice as it is designed to be used. If you want to sound good then that is the way to best accomplish it. But if you aren’t interested in sounding beautiful, like a heavy metal singer for example, then it is even more important to use the voice in line with functional principles. Otherwise the voice will break down and you will no longer be able to be a singer.
I dare say something. I agree with everyone on what they are saying regarding Josh Groban and his vocal technique, or lack thereof. The sad reality is that few singers like him, singers who give this “immitation classical sound in popular music” actually inspire people to listen to real well-balanced classical singers. Andrea Bocelli is closer to what a classically trained singer would sound like (and admired by conductors who should know what they are talking about), but even his voice is not right.
When people listen to good balanced classically trained voices, after coming to love a “sort of classical sound” from these singers, they often judge it harshly. They are not impressed. They feel the real singer, if I can use that term, is overdoing it, putting too much of themselves into it, pushing too hard (now being a balanced singer, they wouldn’t be pushing, though many opera singers DO push, and terribly), and sounding “unnatural.”
This “pop/classic” sound has not required they step too far out of their comfort box, and they really don’t venture out much further when the opportunity comes.
But we see this in reverse as well. There is a wonderful Canadian Soprano, Misha Brueggergosman who everyone thought would be the next “Jessye Norman.” (but in reality, who wants to be the next whomever they were, one always wants to be the first whomever you are, and that is the way it should be) Yet, for so many years she would sing opera, very few operas I would add, and very few in a year, and sing lots of concerts, singing maybe one aria and the rest cabaret songs. She did them well. The fact is, it is that sort of music that actually won her her grammies, not the music she was supposedly creating in her career. She has occasionally recorded a few art songs. Again, all things that didn’t try the intelligence of those who really know nothing about classical music but judge the grammies.
For a singer singing in the classical field as long as she has, her progress in actual operatic programming in not moving ahead. Her voice, though, is beautiful, and when I have heard her in person, it does sound balanced to me. Her recordings, though, do not impress, in my view. She is lifeless.
She has lost tons of weight, presented herself with a whole new personae, and is what looks great on the record/CD covers. She looks provocative.
The marketing bases are covered (and weather we like to admit it or not, they play a huge role in success these days).
So we have two singers, one far superior than the other (Misha makes Josh look like he is squacking), yet both doing something similar: both singing or attempting to achieve a sound that is NOT their own. For the most part, Misha Brueggergosman spends more time singing concerts and art song, cabaret songs, and that sort, while doing not nearly as much with her opera career as one would expect of her. Josh has a nice voice people associate with classical sound (though it is not) and is ruining his voice by playing around with it and using it incorrectly. While it is unlikely Misha will ruin her voice, neither is really giving their public what they want.
How is the public supposed to process all this? They see people like Andrea Bocelli and Josh Groban as “classical singers who sound great with pop.” And they see Brueggergosman as an opera singer who spends too much time on semi-classical pop and cabaret songs.
Both are giving the public what it wants, yet neither is really satisfying.
Like Michael has said, the function is not balanced, and there is no technique for Josh. Yet, Brueggergrosman has balanced function, and uses it to sing immitating the “bad technique” of cabaret singing? Very confusing.
As for the SLS method, and to me it is nothing but a method, it is a joke. They claim they are teaching “bel Canto technique.” Well, no one can sing runs or trills, their voices are not of one sound, even if they can pass through their entire ranges without huge cracks. And they use microphones. We may not know what Bel Canto singers (a term really developed when Wagner was all the rage to distinguish that sort of “new singing” from the older style used in Rossini, Bellini, and Donizetti) actually sounded like. But we do know what their orchestras sounded like, even on authentic instruments. They had to have the power, the ring, and the balance between light and dark to be heard over those orchestras. NOTHING in speech level singing teaches anyone to do that. Yet, that is their claim.
Even critics in Rolling Stone, who seem to have the final say even on classical singers (and they were the ones who stated Charlotte Church — voice of an angel — was the youngest opera singer in the world, and that opera singers spend decades trying to create her sound; you wouldn’t believe the roars of laughter I heard when Oprah said that on her show when she introduced Charlotte Church, people really thought it was a joke) seem to think people like Frank Sinatra were perfect examples of Bel Canto technique, as they had the sweet mellowness talked about in old writings about opera singers of that time. What everyone forgot was, those singers still had voices loud enough to carry over orchestra, other singers, and even a chorus and remain sweet sounding. And they had no microphones.
All is just to illustrate how confused and twisted people’s views are of good singing. Critics who know nothing about good singing (and that includes many who review operatic productions in newspapers) are the ones setting the standard by which everyone judges.
That is really sad.
As for studying with a teacher, Josh Groban, for over a decade and sounding worse; I once stated when discussion teachers that if in time you find your voice is getting worse, you are losing what you once had, and you are beginning to sound terrible, and things are too tight, then you are in need of a different teacher; a good one. If Josh hasn’t noticed his vocal decline, it is because he is selling records, earning awards, and pleasing the powers that be in the industry, and because of that is overlooking what is going terribly wrong with what he has. He may never have had a good technique, but he had a beautiful natural voice. Now he is even losing that. I am sure he has heard this from fans, as did Charlotte Church, and everything is being ignored. That seems common with that sort of singer, and their careers come to an end, and sadly, often a permanent end.
Portuguese is a beautiful but difficult language, so it isn’t a huge surprise that people mispronounce it. However, I have heard professional singers butcher Spanish, and I think that Spanish should be quite easy to sing if one puts a bit of effort into learning it. I’m currently learning Brazilian Portuguese and plan to actually do it some justice in song once my voice is developed enough, but I imagine it’ll take me some time to get to that level, both in terms of language and vocal capability.
Anyway, about Josh Groban’s albums:
– Josh Groban (2001): this was his first album and also the only one where he was still working with Seth Riggs. His voice is rather small and “thin”, so he purposely deepens his voice in a way that sounds rather strange for such a young voice. This characteristic disappears in his next albums.
– Closer (2003): this is after the switch to a “classical” training. Groban sings with a more “speech level” tone quality – that is, his singing sounds like an extension of his speaking voice, albeit with vibrato and with a bit more intensity. No more does he use the artificial-sounding effect in his voice from the first album. Also, he seems to have a rather easy high range, hitting tenor B-flag in full voice occasionally. Hardly any falsetto is involved. However, his voice is still rather small due to being rather young.
– Awake (2006): here, Groban sings with more of the “speech level” effect in his voice, although his voice sounds slightly more mature. His vocal production is slightly airy at times, but still maintains a rather pleasant quality. However, a lot of separated head voice is used on notes that were once easy for him. Whether this is for stylistic purposes or because it was easier for him, I don’t know.
Awake Live (and basically any of his live performances from the past five years): Groban seems to use a really bizarre effect when singing live in large auditoriums or stadiums. It’s somewhat nasal – not twangy or honky, but placed too forward. The resulting sound is too bright for my tastes, and the vibrato is almost like a bleat. It doesn’t sound very pretty, but I guess it’s just a stylistic effect.
Noël (2007): this is where his voice starts showing some more “alarming” characteristics. While he still retains the light, speech-like quality in his songs, when he sings high or intensely it sounds too bright and sometimes shouty.
Illuminations (2010): this is his latest album, and unfortunately, something sounds very “off” here. His voice sounds somewhat deeper, probably because he is older, but it also seems too bright and strained. His pitch is not so great, his high notes seem VERY shouted and off-pitch, and he relies more on falsetto for the high notes than before. I don’t think he hits any notes higher than G or G# in full voice once.
Those are just my general observations from the albums. I migh encourage everyone to have a listen and try to spot out some things that I may have overlooked or gotten wrong.
Yes, off topic but still a valid complaint. I personally have never sung Portuguese and only a couple times attempted Spanish. I will point out that Garanca is not American, but that doesn’t change your point. My guess is that people just assume that Portuguese and Spanish are close enough to be pronounced the same. It is also possible (likely) that coaches are not knowledgeable of Portuguese either. Whatever the reason it is clear they are doing a disservice to the Portuguese language and the music of those composers. I think many of the less-common languages could make the same complaint. Then you have dialects, which adds a whole another level to the discussion.
This is completely off topic… But why is it that when you Americans sing in Portuguese you ALWAYS pronounce it like it’s Spanish??? I’m sorry, but as a native, it bothers me tremendously! I have heard interpretations of Villa-Lobos’ Bachianas Nº5 which were completely ruined by unintelligible pronounciation (see Renee Fleming, Kathleen Battle, Elina Garance, and the beautiful but completely alien-sounding Arleen Auger). Pop singers do the exact same thing. Funny thing is that commited singers who sing in many different languages (that is specially required of classical singers), if they do not speak a certain language, they master at least the basic sounds of that language so they can communicate clearly to their audience. I see it done with French, German, Russian and even Spanish – teachers emphasize it, and students take it seriously. However, when people sing in Portuguese, they either sing in the pronunciation of their mother language, or just like it’s Spanish and not a different language. I find it somewhat offensive that world famous singers (classical or popular) do not learn to pronounce Protuguese correctly to get the message of the music across and be well understood by Brazilian/Portuguese-speaking audiences…
You’re welcome. OK, I did not know about this new teacher. Good information. Thanks.
Thanks for your response, Michael, and what you’re saying is very correct. The only thing I would add is that he did indeed get moved from Seth Riggs to a “classical/bel canto” celebrity teacher, David Romano. The aforementioned gentleman also happens to be the teacher of Sarah Brightman, who really isn’t taken seriously by many hardcore opera fans. Now I don’t know if Mr. Romano is a good teacher whose students don’t listen to him, or if he is simply teaching his students stuff that hampers their voices, but I can’t help but raise my eyebrow when two famous singers from the same teacher simply aren’t that great (functionally).
As for Mr. Groban, I have music from all his albums, and a gradual change in his voice between the albums is indeed very obvious. I’ll give some more detailed examples in my follow-up post later today.