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)
Thanks for the info, Simon. I’ve deleted the latest of the “we love Josh” comments. That is not the purpose of this post. It was meant to answer a question, not to bash Josh Groban and not to give his fans a place to reaffirm their worship of him while taking pot-shots at me. Comments for this post are closed.
Quick note on compression: Compression is used for recording because current recording technology does not have the dynamic range that the ear does, so the loud parts have to be compressed in order for the signal not to clip and the softer parts brought up so that they are audible. If you’ve ever seen the Sherlock Holmes TV series played by Jeremy Brett, you’ll notice that no compression is used, thus the volume has to be turned up for the quiet parts, then turned down again because Jeremy Brett has a very loud voice. :) Our ears have their own compression system, but don’t rely on that to protect your ears – it only goes so far.
I see that my casual inquiry at the beginning has sparked quite a tempest here. It was not my intention that anyone should be offended by what is being said about Josh Groban. I happen to like his music and the quality of his voice. It goes without saying that his performing expression is sincere and his music is heartfelt (especially when he pens the lyrics himself). But as Michael has said, we aren’t here to discuss the artistic validity of singers – that is for the individuals to decide for themselves. My original question was to see where Josh Groban stood on a functional scale, and I can tell that he is declining in some ways. Even some of my friends noticed that his voice doesn’t sound as “perfect” in the latest album as before, and they’re not even into the whole vocal pedagogy thing like I am. I concede, I am not an experienced singer and I cannot claim to be able to outdo Josh Groban in any music, nor do I have the discerning ear that many people here have. But if even my school friends can tell that something is up with Josh’s voice, then something’s definitely going on.
Maybe I took too far a leap by saying that Josh Groban’s voice is being destroyed/killed by his teacher, but if David Romano is truly such a great teacher, then surely he would be guiding Groban on a path toward better and better vocal function (unless Josh simply doesn’t apply what he is taught, but that doesn’t explain why Sarah Brightman, also a Romano student, doesn’t sound too good these days). Instead, it has become clear that something in Josh Groban’s vocal production is off-kilter and it is definitely affecting him.
At the end of it all, I hope that somehow, Josh Groban somehow gets on the right track as far as technique goes. He already sings with passion and has a unique voice (indeed, I’ve never found anyone with such a distinct quality). If he had better training, he could be world class.
Regardless of what I think of his vocal function, I still enjoy his singing and will probably get his next album, whenever it may come out (unless he somehow sounds so bad that I give up on him). All else aside, I wish everyone the best of luck in their endeavors, musical and otherwise.
Chris, it seems that I have upset you a bit. Not my intention. So sorry about that. I was just trying to explain my perspective and defend Josh and his fans against what I and others felt was unnecessarily cruel remarks. And I find it rather sad that you thought Josh’s voice was beautiful when you first heard it, then after all your “education” you noticed many flaws in his voice. In general, I’m all for education because I am an educator myself, but if education in the arts causes one to find excessive fault in artists who bring joy to millions, well, that is education I prefer not to gain. I’ll go on enjoying Josh voice in blissful ignorance. But I do agree that singers such as you and Josh need to learn things that protect your voice from harm. That’s just common sense.
Thanks for the explanation about compression, and actually I do have an interest in technical things. Although I have not studied audio engineering, I have a degree in electrical engineering and worked as a software engineer for 20 years for a defense contractor. I’ve done graduate work in physics too, so the technical side of music production might be something I would be interested in learning more about. But I’ll pass on learning about technical aspects of the human voice. I’ll leave that to the singers and vocal coaches, and continue to enjoy music. No, I don’t think Josh is perfect, but …. well, no need to re-hash that…
Anyway, I just wanted to assure you that I do not feel “personally insulted” by any of the opinions in this blog, and you even made me laugh with your “handwaving and bake sale flyers from the Church of Groban” comment. I write a bit of silly satire myself, so I might use that idea in a future story (if you don’t mind)… hee hee. Yes, Josh fans tend to be a bit intense… but I feel that’s ok. Finding something that you love and are passionate about is one of the most beautiful things in life. Don’t you agree?
Chris, I wish you the best in your singing career. May all your dreams come true.
@Louise:
“Do you actually believe that Domingo had to “make do” and that the engineer had to “tweak” and compress to make Josh’s “mediocre singing” sound good?”
In a duet with two ‘tenors’ where one has a limited range, the key would have to be set based on the high notes of the limited tenor – trust me, producers and audiences love the high notes. In the harmonies, if the higher singer is given a third above, who are we to say that he wouldn’t have sounded better up a few semitones? Since they share a verse each, how are we to know whether Domingo might have sounded better up a few semitones rather than sing down where Josh is comfortable (remember, Domingo is the higher tenor here and thankfully has a good chest – some tenors would not sound great that low) Of course, it could equally be argued that perhaps Groban would have been more comfortable in a lower key, and that Domingo would have struggled. Having heard a great deal of Domingo (who now sings a bit of baritone, just to confuse matters :)), I just don’t think this is the case. We’ll never know because I am speculating, as Michael said, but duets are more limiting than solo singing, for obvious reasons, so make for poor comparisons no matter how convenient they are for your argument.
I didn’t say Josh was a mediocre singer who needed tweaking, that is a complete strawman. I actually said that I think he is a naturally gifted singer, so perhaps you might like to re-read what I wrote sans bias. All vocal tracks are tweaked – sorry to rob you of your innocence there. All tracks are compressed. Compression limits the dynamic range of the recording. It brings the softer sounds up and louder sounds down. Most tracks are actually mixed THROUGH compression, so the compression is applied to the stereo buss first, and then compressors may be added to individual tracks; which means that your little ears don’t get hurt by crescendo, but you also have absolutely no idea what the vocalist can actually achieve in a real room setting. There is actually a growing movement amongst audio engineers (spearheaded by Charles Dye) to reduce the huge amount of compression in current modern music production because many feel the extreme lack of dynamics present in modern mixes is killing music. Engineers manipulate everything in a studio recording, end of story. And surely you can hear that there is too much reverb on the track – where did you think they recorded it, a New York City sewer?
I have not seen Groban live, but perhaps I will, next time he comes to my country – I saw Buble and thoroughly enjoyed his show, even though I could hear the signs of vocal problems as he has moved from a croon to a belt, over the years. Again, you can’t really compare a recording artist whose sole aim is to create colour in his recordings with an dramatic opera singer whose sole aim is to project the beauty of his voice over an orchestra. Surely you can fathom the difference between the opera stage and a pop concert. I’m not saying one is right and the other wrong, I am simply saying that you can’t compare the two in terms of which sounds better – is a Ferrari better than a Camry? Maybe on the track, but not to carry the kids and the shopping. As to why Domingo wanted to sing with Groban, who knows – maybe he likes doing duets – maybe he was pleased to have someone bringing opera to the masses – maybe he is just a great artist who likes working with great musicians. What does it matter? Are you really so desperate to ‘prove’ to us that Groban is as good as you believe him to be that you would seek the approving nod of Domingo as evidence of your belief? In debates, this is known as an Appeal to Authority. And we’ll never know what he thinks of Groban’s voice, nor again should we care. This might be news to you, but quite a few great singers don’t know how they sing so beautifully and certainly couldn’t assess the vocal function of others without bias. Jerome Hines’s book, “Great Singers on Great Singing” highlights this.
I understand that you are passionate about Josh and the beauty you hear in his voice, but don’t forget that I have ears and a heart too, as I am sure do the other commenters (if my albeit limmited understanding of anatomy serves me correctly). I also thought Josh’s voice was beautiful, when I first heard it as teenager. I then went away for several years and listened to other singers, good and bad, attended singing lessons, masterclasses, and read many texts on the voice. When, on a whim, I dusted off Josh’s album and put it on again, I was shocked at the imbalances I noticed that I hadn’t before, mainly because I didn’t know what to listen for back then – I really had no idea of vocal function even though I was already singing regularly and being praised for my supposedly ‘great technique’ by people just as ignorant as I was. I suppose you could say that, to a certain extent, a veil had been lifted from my eyes – and it continues to do so the more I study. I then knew for certain that there was a lot more to this singing game than people realise, and that if I ever wanted to be able to do it well for the rest of my life, I needed to get to the heart of doing it properly. Anyone can have a career for 5-10yrs, but how many pop singers sound great at 80? That’s why I found this blog and am interested in an expert’s opinion on modern singers of all styles – I am not interested in debating the technical aspects of audio and vocal production with somebody who has no technical knowledge or interest in these areas, seems to wear it as some sort of badge of honour, and reacts to every opinion as though it was a personal insult. I’m sure you would agree that is an unwinnable scenario, and not fun at all.
I, personally, couldn’t care less how vehemently you or anyone else believes Josh to be the creator of such beauty that his recordings are untouched perfection from his lips to your ears – the egomaniac within me likes the idea that perhaps one day people like you will buy my albums and think the same of me – but it’s simply not true, and dangerous for a singer to start believing his own press (not that I am saying Groban does – but there are others out there who do). What I DO care about is identifying correct and incorrect vocal function, and learning from it – even if it means letting go of a few million preconceived notions and replacing a few role models. I also care about getting behind the studio trickery to find out what works in the real world and what is only possible on an album or with a huge concert budget.
You are never going to convince people who are viewing this from a quite objective, technical basis with non-technical examples, handwaving and bake sale flyers from the Church of Groban. I honestly don’t know why you didn’t just dismiss it and get on with your life, because you certainly aren’t here to learn anything.
Mr. Mayer,
I have aprreciated your comments on Josh Groban. I was a voice performance major in college (opera), so I do have an understanding of what you are saying, and when I listen to the progression of Josh’s voice over the last decade, I do agree that I hear some disturbing characteristics that have obviously crept in over the years. I am especially concerned about the breathy tones he is producing in his upper register and his overuse of falsetto on his latest release. On his recent cd Illuminations, he seems to sound somewhat strained when singing his top notes full voice, especially on the folk type songs. He seems to be singing so much more in the back of his throat, rather than using proper breath support to produce a free, rounded pure tone that resonates properly. And, he doesn’t seem to have as much vocal range. Perhaps much of this is just a stylistic thing which he is intentionally doing in an attempt to make his voice sound less classical, or possibly just that these songs aren’t written to capitalize on that voice, but for me, it still raises alot of red flags.
No one here has mentioned the song L’ora dell Addio, which surprises me, since that is the most operatic stylised song on his new album, and since this is a blog about classical singing, I expected to find comments regarding it. To me, his voice is obviously a bit heavier than his previous albums,and his upper tones are not as open, clear and ringing as they should be if he were using proper breath support. I expected after all the years of vocal coaching, his upper register would be stronger and more brilliant, given that he has a light voice, not thin and weak, as it seems to be here. Of course, his voice has matured over time, but I miss the light, natural easy quality it used to have. To me, his voice just sounds too weighty and fatigued. Once he started experimenting with different musical styles, it seems like he just vocally started to deteriorate. One simply can’t abuse a voice like that and undertake a hectic performance schedule and expect it to not be adversly affected.
Another comment is that I do know the production on this entire album was more old school and utilized a one take approach similar to a live recording,so I don’t know how much that is affecting the overall vocal quality on this recording.
I have been a fan of Groban’s music since he first appeared on the scene, and my hope is that he will be smart and address these issues so that the longevity of his carrer as a singer is preserved. With the demands put on his voice by constant performing and touring, my concern is whether or not his voice will continue to hold up unless he is willing to make a commitment to himself to do what is necessary to maintain his vocal health. That would mean taking time off to rest and specifically work on improving his vocal technique, especially if he wants to continue to perform the classically styled pieces. Unfortunately, celebs in Josh’s position often surround themselves with paid yes sayers who only perceive them as a cash cow, and don’t really care much beyond the money they are able to make at the singer’s expense. In my opinion, he needs to find some new top notch classical vocal coaches who are unbiased and can give him honest feedback and guidance.
If you have read any of the fan reviews on sites like Amazon, you will also know that there has been a big backlash to this album. Many of his fans do not like it at all, so that is also telling. Hopefully, Groban will take note of what even the musically uneducated ears are saying and make some changes.
Michael, how about some comments on L’Ora dell ‘Addio?
Thanks!
I don’t know what happened with Seth Riggs, April. I would be curious to hear that story. I like much of what Cecilia has done. But she has some functional issues that I have pointed out in previous posts. But that doesn’t eliminate the fact that she is a wonderful performer that many enjoy. A great example of this dual existence would be Maria Callas. She was an amazing performer, but most (including herself) recognize that she abused her voice.
Yes Louise, Snoopy is a favorite of mine. And Charles Schulz is from my area originally. So he is a hometown hero. Thanks for being understanding. I try to be objective so we can learn from these singers. But I have opinions about what I like as well. I like many singers with poor function and I dislike many singers with poor function. And many of the singers I dislike are classical singers.
Mr. Mayer:
Do you know what happened to Josh’s original vocal coach, Seth Riggs? I had “heard” he had a falling out with Josh’s producer at the time who was David Foster. I am unable to quote the exact reason but I seem to remember it was over Josh vocal technique? I should look it up because now I’m more interested.
Hey! Cecilia Bartoli! I have several of her CD’s and really like her. My friends make fun of me for it. I’d love to know your thoughts on her if you don’t mind?
Thanks for your thoughtful comments Michael. You are an intelligent person and seem to be genuinely trying to help Josh and other singers. And yes, you certainly have a right to your opinions on your own blog.
Well, let’s hope that Josh continues to care for his voice and strive to be great, however he can achieve that. I would be sad if he decided to stop singing…. (although I would still be a fan because he is interesting and very funny!)
Have a great day!
Oh yes… isn’t Snoopy wonderful? :-)
Well, I just wrote a long reply for you, Louise. And then I accidentally clicked and it disappeared. So I am not sure I want to rewrite everything I said. But I wanted to say that I love Snoopy, and Sting. I understand the point you are trying to make, and it might apply to what others have said. But it misses the point of my comments.
Unfortunately I can’t be responsible for what others have said about Josh. I have tried to stay on topic but the quote you cite is a time I did express my personal opinion. And I should be able to do so since this is, after all, my blog. I didn’t write these things on your fan site or publish it in an international gossip mag.
The reality is many of my readers are classical singers. But many are also non-classical singers. I don’t have much interest in discussing style because that is something that the artist feels for themselves. It is not relevant to function. Any style can be sung with good, natural function. That is what I try to explain.
But even people who spend all their time on singing don’t always “get” what I’m talking about. There is an optimal, natural way of using the voice based on how it is designed to function. Just like other activities with the body have optimal function based on the natural mechanics of the physiology of our body. That is what I describe and present.
There are many opinions about technique, as Gayle pointed out. I am not joining that argument. I’m interested in helping people to see that the body wants to be used in a certain way. It is our job to figure that out so we can best realize our vocal potential and keep our voice healthy. I always assume that any sincere singer would want that for themselves.
I also want to point out that most of the current classical singers I have heard use their voice poorly. This “classical critic” that you describe probably doesn’t really know what they are talking about. And the singer that “sings correctly” probably didn’t have great technique. There just aren’t many singers active today that we can legitimately say that about. These singers just know how to imitate a great sound, which is different from actually using the voice great so it results in a great tone. There is a lot of talk about these things and I assume it is because they still need to sell tickets and recordings. And people do still love these singers. Just like you love Josh. But it is hard to be objective about things we love.
One more thing. If Josh Groban actually did use his voice well I would be a big fan. He is trying to do exactly what I would love to see in the pop genre. And I would use him as a great example. It is clear that his intention is to use his voice naturally to express the music through beautiful singing. That is the essence of bel canto. But he falls short of realizing that. At least based on my understanding of the voice and my musical sense. Obviously he doesn’t fall short for millions of people. Like I said in my original post, he is doing something right.
I suppose if I were to sing pop music it would be like what he is trying to do. Simple, natural, sincere and beautiful singing. If only he could learn to use his voice to fulfill that objective more completely. Then you would hear how great he could be.
Thanks for your view, Tina. But yes, the people who read this blog are interested in the technical aspects of singing. I will say again, this post originated from a question by a big Josh Groban fan who is trying to learn and understand the technical nature of the voice. Obviously you are not a regular reader of this blog. I haven’t published this in some international gossip mag. This is my private blog where I discuss these very things. I didn’t send this to you or invite you here to rub your nose in it. Some people try to learn from what I say. If you aren’t interested then it is that much easier for you to enjoy the music. Congratulations.
Thanks for sharing your feelings, Gayle. Even people who dedicate all of their time to the study of the voice have a hard time “getting” what I am trying to present. So I have come to expect backlash to the things I write. I’ve been attacked by Rolando Villazon fans, Cecilia Bartoli fans, and Renee Fleming fans. All of whom are classical singers. So I certainly am not picking on Josh because he’s not a classical singer. And I’m not simply having a difference of opinion with the way he is training or his technique. I am focused on the natural behavior of the voice. Not the technical “opinions” that vary with each teacher. It is the difference between belief and reality. I am not trying to “win”, because reality can’t win. It just is what it is. Only different opinions can try to win.
Chris, good points. Your basic premise is right on the mark. Unfortunately your assumptions about the recording of the duet is just speculation, so we can’t know for sure. But it is plausible. There is a great deal of manipulation in recordings. Watch the popular show “Glee” to hear highly processed recordings. It sounds like synthesizers are singing. I don’t hear that in Groban’s recordings, though.
Thanks for your response Michael.
You said: “Our discussion was intended to focus on his vocal function for the purpose of learning.” Well, ok, if that is your intent that’s fine. A friend sent me the link to this blog. If I would have visited here and just seen discussion of Josh’s vocal technique, I would not have responded. I don’t even have a problem with people saying they don’t like Josh or his singing or his technique. Everyone has their own musical taste. I love Sting. I think he is a musical genius, but I know many would disagree with me. And if you don’t like Josh, then so be it.
But I responded here because of statements like this: “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.” How is that “focusing on his vocal function for the purpose of learning”? In my opinion, it is not. It is an insulting slam and is not “teaching” anyone anything. Others have chimed in here with demeaning comments about Josh being delusional, losing touch with reality, and accusing his fans of being “confused and twisted”. Sadly, this is what happens at most classical music blogs discussing Josh, and when somebody like me comes along and responds, their defense is that they were just discussing “his vocal function”.
Josh doesn’t mind criticism. In fact, in an interview, when asked about this very thing, he said harsh criticism of his music and singing does not bother him, as long as the critic states his case in an intelligent way. And I am guessing he actually likes to get feedback and constructive criticism, because he has often stated that he is still learning, and will always strive to improve and be great in whatever he does.
As a commenter above stated, Josh is not singing opera, nor anything classical at this time. But whatever he is doing, I love it and I think he sounds better than any other singer I’ve ever heard. Often a classical critic will point out a singer who “sings correctly” and sounds so much better than Josh. Intrigued, I seek out the singer and listen. Every single time I have, the supposedly “better singer” sounded horrible to me. Yes, he might have had “great technique”, but what is the point if hardly anyone wants to hear you sing? That’s what I don’t get.
You know, I thought of an analogy in the shower last night (showers stimulate my brain for some reason). This is like a blog written by art critics slamming Charles Schulz because his drawings of Snoopy are not anywhere close to the paintings of Paul Gauguin. And they are lamenting the extreme popularity of Snoopy when it is obvious to them that Charles had bad drawing technique. Well, sorry, I would much rather have drawings of Snoopy hanging on my walls than Paul Gauguin paintings, which I think are quite ugly. I don’t care how great his “painting technique” was…
To Chris Byrne:
Yes, I am ignorant. You got that right. Again, I know nothing about vocal technique. But I find it extremely hard to believe the things you state about the Josh and Domingo duet. Do you actually believe that Domingo had to “make do” and that the engineer had to “tweak” and compress to make Josh’s “mediocre singing” sound good? If Josh is so mediocre, then why did Domingo ask him to sing with him in the first place? I would love to talk to the engineers who produced the album, and to Domingo himself about this. Until I do, I will believe that Domingo thinks that Josh is a great singer and that there was no manipulation done. Why? Because I have heard Josh sing live several times (have you?) and he sounded even BETTER than on his recordings. It was truly astounding. Also, I have heard many solo Domingo recordings, and sorry, Josh just sounds 10 times better to me… (And I am not saying Domingo is a bad singer…only that Josh is better, in my opinion…)
Well, little ol’ ignorant me has to go put my Josh CD on and hang my Snoopy pics on the wall…
Later y’all!
I realize you folks consider yourselves some kind of experts in the music field, but do you really think that most of us care about the technical aspects of singing?
Very funny that you’ve chosen Josh Groban to pick on. And yes, that’s what it is. I say why not post some videos of those of you who chose to criticize his singing and let the common person pick it apart? Talk is cheap. And in this case, very cheap. Tacky, even, Mr. Michael.
Here are my original comments:
I am a huge fan of Josh Groban—I even run a fan forum for him. I happen to think he is the greatest singer on the planet today. Before you roll your eyes, hear me out. I’m not some silly teenager who has never been to a classical music concert or listened to classically-trained singers. I am in my 50’s and have been a life-long music fan. I listen to all types of music from classical to pop and rock to new age and jazz. I am a business professor at a small private college. No, I am not a musician, nor do I know anything at all about the “technical” aspect of vocal performance. But, as such, I think that could make me a good spokesperson for the millions of “average” people who have enthusiastically bought Josh Groban’s recordings. Josh is not a “representation of classical singing” to me, nor do I know of any other Josh fan who has described Josh in that way. The term “popera” is not liked—by Josh himself, nor by any fan that I know. Josh describes himself as a pop singer and he is constantly striving to push musical boundaries to create music that is unique and that touches people’s hearts.
Actually, I find this entire conversation a perfect example of why the popularity and support of classical music has dwindled during the last few decades, and why the term “classical music snob” is alive and well. Any intelligent person who is not an “expert” on the voice (like all of you) would more than likely be offended by your many insinuations that we non-experts are too stupid to recognize good singing when we hear it… I know I was. I am particularly disturbed by your implication that any supporter and fan of Josh Groban would not know what a good singer sounds like. Personally, I have no interest in dissecting a performance by Josh Groban or any other singer in a technical or anatomical way. If you do, that’s fine, but just because I cannot or will not do that does not mean that I do not have a valid opinion about the greatness of a singer. I have ears and music is a very important thing in my life—I honestly cannot imagine life without music. And the first time I heard Josh’s voice, at the age of 45, I was completely overwhelmed by the beauty of it. After listening to singers for over 40 years, I can honestly say that I have never heard a more beautiful voice, ever. Of course, I agree that “beauty is in the ear of the beholder”, but considering his massive success, I would think most people would agree with me. That is why I find the following statements absolutely incredulous and rude:
“All is just to illustrate how confused and twisted people’s views are of good singing.”
“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.”
“It really isn’t hard to realize that Groban really isn’t that good as far as singing overall.”
“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.”
Well yes, I know that Josh has sung off-key at times. I have a very good ear. I don’t like everything he’s done and I have stated that publicly. He has given some not-so-great performances. He has suffered from upper respiratory illnesses for years, and unfortunately he has chosen to sing live at times when he could not be at his best. But I do not fault him for this. The show must go on, as they say.
But my point is that, overall, I find Josh Groban’s singing and performances to be the absolute best, and I feel blessed to have lived in this time to hear him and follow his career. I have heard many male opera singers and I just think he’s better than any of them—even those singers considered the best in the world. (I find most male opera singers to be very nasal-sounding, a characteristic that is very unpleasant to my ears. Josh does not have this nasal quality at all—unless he is sick.) And, to me, his voice has just improved over the past decade.
To support my points, please listen to a duet that Josh did with Placido Domingo. I realize that Domingo has aged and may not be at his “prime”, but I would think that most of you would consider him a great singer. In this duet, I think that Josh sounds far, far better than Domingo. Josh sings first in this song, and the contrast between his voice and Domingo’s first lines is stark. Josh’s tone is breathtaking in its beauty; Domingo sounds nasal to me.
Listen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNoS4dc9NK4
Also, I would like to point out that this duet was recorded just a little over 2 years ago, after Josh recorded his Christmas CD Noel—the CD that you claim demonstrates the decline of Josh’s voice. I cannot understand this—Noel has to be one of the most beautiful albums ever recorded, so I contend that Josh’s voice has gotten better over time, not worse. I think that David Romano has done a magnificent job in taking care of Josh’s vocal training. I cannot imagine David doing anything to harm Josh’s voice over time.
One final point: I am a huge supporter of Josh not only because of the beauty of his singing, but also because of who he is as a person. He has a beautiful heart and has worked tirelessly to help many charitable causes, including music education. He even testified before Congress in 2009, pleading for more support for the arts in our schools. I know this has nothing to do with the technical discussion of Josh’s voice, but I thought I would point this out—because Josh has absolutely supported the arts in every way and has stated that he has the utmost respect for the classical music community. So it makes me sad to read the comments here that are so insulting to Josh and his fan base.
“Vocal Wisdom”? Sorry, not in my mind…
I hope that you will consider my thoughts expressed here.
1. I studied voice in college and have a degree in choral/vocal music. 2. I have heard Groban sing live and in small venues several times where there was no “production” added to his voice (and have also heard him without a microphone). 3. I agree that occasionally over the years the vocal quality has suffered and I think it is sometimes from too much singing (on long tours…i.e. at the end of the Closer Tour on “Live at the Greek”). 4. I have NEVER before seen nor heard breath control like Groban has….he is amazing! I am in envious awe of that aspect of his singing. So I’m not sure where the heck you are coming from on that point! 5. Groban has claimed over and over NOT to be an opera singer, instead to be a pop singer, and he clearly hates the term “popera.” Your article seems to claim that he thinks he is more than a pop singer….listen to his interviews. He is much more interested in writing and singing his own music, accompanied by his own increasingly complex and technically excellent piano playing. 6. I agree with the previous respondent that the duet Groban did with Domingo is extremely beautiful although I don’t agree that Placido doesn’t sound good on it….it has been and continues to be my favorite recorded song for Groban. 7. Groban is one of the very few performers I have heard who can reproduce, live, what is on his albums, and he does it night after night after night without flaws. He sounds better live today than he did a decade ago on his albums….(I never heard him live until 2005 so I can’t make that comparison). But he sounded pretty darned amazing in his recent “Before We Begin” tour. As an example, he sang “Gira Con Me” on this most recent live concert and compared to his singing of that song on his PBS concert DVD in 2001? Well the improvement is really obvious…the voice has gotten richer, the range better, the interpretation more mature.
My main point is that when Groban claims to be “classically trained,” what he is saying (I think) is that he has studied voice and takes his instrument seriously. He is not claiming to be an opera singer….never has, and that is only one type of classical singing. I frankly don’t care much at all for the “operatic” sound. And Groban uses his voice to convey emotion better than most anyone I’ve every heard, which I think is why he connects so strongly with his audience. I remember voice studios in college…there was never complete agreement as to what was “good” technique. Teachers were always critical of each other….so the Seth Riggs vs. David Romano comparison is, to me, simply that. A disagreement between two different schools of thought on vocal production. Riggs is a great teacher but then so is Romano. Both have had distinguished careers. Does someone always have to “win?”
Am I a fan? For sure I have become one over the last few years, but I am also an academic studying the impact of careers like Groban’s on the public. And as I said at the beginning, I was a voice major back in my undergraduate days so I do know something about the subject. My voice is “classically trained” too although I’m not nearly in a class with Josh Groban, not even by half. Thanks.
Hi Louise,
In response to your blog post – I can certainly understand that you might take offense to some statements that are made on this blog, particularly given your strong views about Josh Groban. I would
say I am someone who greatly admires Josh Groban’s talents – let’s face it, what’s not to like – he’s a good pianist, a pretty handy drummer, a funny, nice bloke, and he has quite a pleasant voice!
Would I say he’s an example of exceptional vocal technique? No, I wouldn’t. He is an example of plenty of vocal and musical talent, sure, but not technique – two things between which the public is becoming increasingly bad at differentiating – a frustrating situation for teachers and students of correct technique to find themselves in, wouldn’t you say?
If anything, he is an example of how vocal talent clearly becomes secondary to technique over the course of a professional vocal career. Since this blog is about vocal technique, it should be understood that technique is the focus when analysing a singer.
I read your response to this post, and felt that you summed your position up rather well by stating that you aren’t interested in analysing Josh’s voice. Unfortunately, this is the very heart of the matter. Whether he supports the arts or rescues little children from burning buildings really has nothing to do with whether his voice is trained correctly, whether his voice can handle the
classical repertoire into which he has tended to delve, or whether his albums present examples of the good singing that the public believe they are getting.
At the end of the day, there are a great
number of people who hold crossover singers like Josh up as representatives of the correct vocal technique inherent in the classical genre; and frankly, they generally aren’t. This is certainly not Josh’s fault, but then he doesn’t exactly go out of his way to remind people just how out of his depth he would actually be in the classical world, does he? I read that he refers to himself as a ‘tenor in training’. Unfortunately, baritenors are really just tenors or baritones who haven’t been trained properly (I know – I am one of them), not some wonderful new vocal classification reserved for curly-haired boy-nextdoors with a special place in our hearts, like Michael Ball and Groban. This is not snobbery, I happen to like both of these guys and what they do with what they have – but it is a fact, nonetheless. His ‘tenor’ voice (lighter mechanism) has become increasingly difficult to navigate over the years, and there is only one reason for this: he doesn’t know what he is doing, and he doesn’t know who to turn to to address what is probably a privately terrifying concern for him – imagine being an olympic sprinter and starting to notice a loss of feeling in your legs!
It has been said that Kurt Baum (operatic tenor) could be woken up in the middle of the night at 75 yrs old and sing a rich, full-voice high C easily. Was this because he was more ‘vocally talented’ than Groban, or because he simply knew something Josh didn’t? At 29, with over 10yrs of training under his belt, Josh’s ‘tenor training’ with the ‘world’s best coaches’ should be strengthening his upper register, not turning it into a belt-falsetto dog and pony show.
As for the clip you provided: Firstly, it is quite badly mixed. I’m not sure (but I can suspect) the reasons for the amount of reverb added to the vocals, but it makes it impossible to ascertain much from such wet tracks! You cannot use a modern studio recording as evidence of good singing or as a comparison between two voices – you can only use it as an example of good or bad music
production, irrespective of the content – there are tricks as long as your arm to make even the most mediocre singer sound great, the vocalists get hundreds of goes at the song and the best bits from each of these are spliced
together into a single ‘track’ – the engineer’s job is to tweak the tracks until they all feel meshed together and complementary to one another.
That ‘vocal quality’ which is held in such regard by listeners is a frequency range that can simply be turned up in the EQ – it’s the first thing an engineer does after pitch correction, to give the vocals richness and warmth. The only way to tell if that supposedly amazing quality is present in real life is to hear it travel over an orchestral – and only the ring of the voice can do this, not the low frequency rumbles or high, soft whispers that make you feel all tingly inside but have no place in classical repertoire! Imagine Barry White or Sarah McLachlan trying to sing without a microphone… then imagine them trying to do it over a 50-piece orchestra. If you can’t do this, you aren’t singing classically, it’s that simple.
As for Domingo, I agree that this is certainly not the best example of his voice. The track seems to me to have been arranged for Josh’s voice and Domingo (understandably, given he is who he is) has had to ‘make do’. Given that Domingo is a dramatic tenor with a rich baritone chest voice, it was always going to be the case that he would greatly overpower and outrange Groban in a duet- that’s why it
sounds like the engineer has compressed the hell out of everything so everyone’s on an even keel. Also remember that Domingo is singing ‘romantically’ (a tall order for any dramatic voice, although Domingo is one of the few who can do it well). And, finally, let’s not forget that he was also suffering from cancer at the time!
As for your nasality statement: Domingo sings with lots of nasal resonance, but not nasality – this is essential in order to sing opera, where the only microphones are dangling from the ceiling. He sings, as do all operatic tenors, with a tiny “oo” in the back of the throat in order to allow the ring of the voice to carry over the orchestra – since he has a big voice, perhaps what you are hearing as nasality is actually that core of the voice stripped of its ‘bigness’ for the purpose of the style of the recording – imagine spending your career carrying your voice over an orchestra and then being asked occasionally to ‘whisper’ into a microphone two centimetres away from your lips so some kid recording artist can feel like an opera star? You wouldn’t be very practised at it,would you? I’m sure you’d agree that this is not a case of comparing apples with apples.
Josh Groban has no concept of this ‘carry’ because he has not been taught how to sing opera for the environment in which it is actually sung! He has been taught how to mimic the throat space of an opera singer projecting without amplification, while never being less then half a foot away from a microphone. Perhaps you can see why Josh is at an advantage in this scenario – he uses the amplification of the microphone to enhance his voice, as he has always done, while Domingo is used to using the amplification of his BODY to enhance his voice – something that just doesn’t work well with close-mic’ing. Groban actually sings with MORE nasality than Domingo, but to your ear, this has become a pleasant quality rather than an incorrect one – which is certainly not your fault – it is simply a cultural shift thanks to poor vocal role models everywhere you listen, and the prominence of the ‘recording artist’ in today’s popular music, as opposed to the ‘performance artist’ – even today’s ‘opera’ is full of dark hooters like Katherine Jenkins who sing like they swallowed a metre of PVC, only to have supposedly knowledgable critics turn around and laud it as an example of chiaroscuro. What Josh DOESN’T do is modify his vowels as he ascends into the head register, so he ‘splats’ up high while Domingo’s voice becomes like a knife, cutting through the soundscape – something that cannot be truly appreciated on a studio recording. Listen to Josh’s high notes – they have been carefully faded out and masked (drowned out by increasing the levels of the accompaniment tracks) by the engineer for a very good reason – they aren’t pretty like his chest notes – they are strident.
Stating that Domingo sounds nasal compared to Groban is, for example, like saying that in 1975 Arnold Scwarzenegger’s muscles were too big compared to Sylvester Stallone’s. Unfortunately, it is a personal preference, it compares a professional bodybuilder to an actor with muscles, does not at all consider the necessary requirements of a career in bodybuilding as opposed that of being an action movie star and says more about that person’s lack of knowledge and understanding of the subtleties of the two than it does add any validity to that person’s argument.
To summarise, I can understand that some comments made may have seemed a bit harsh, and perhaps that is all you needed to state. I was inclined to agree with you that speculating on Josh’s motives is pointless, irrelevant and possibly nasty (although I am sure he’ll be okay) – but your blog post detracted from that position by revealing a great deal of bias on your own part, and frankly, some clear ignorance. I wish Josh Groban continued success in any future endeavours, but I cannot say that he is a good example of good vocal technique at all, whether he sounds nice to me, you, or anyone else for that matter.
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong in any of these points, of course :)
Thanks for your comment, April. It is frightening that he has a highly-respected professional by his side on a regular basis and is still noticeably declining over time. You would think that someone would have a clue about this. Who knows? None of us are in the circle. All we can do is observe from the out side. But it is a good example of what I have discussed before regarding the fact that a singer’s job is ultimately to connect and communicate with an audience. And he is still doing this. I’m not in that audience, just as many of his fans would not likely be interested in what I like to listen to. But, the singer can still fulfill their purpose without perfect vocal function. Look at jazz trumpeter Louis Armstrong. He did a lot of singing with not much of a voice. And he was fantastic. But if the way you use your voice is harmful, the instrument won’t hold up for as many years as you are going to want to use it. And that is disappointing, especially to the fans. That is what I am focused on and try to help people with. I don’t mean to sound like I am passing judgment on anyone. I was accused of that with a classical singer in the past. So it is certainly not “classical music snobbery”. But it can seem like that when I point out examples of poor vocal behavior to help people learn to recognize an off-balance voice. We need to learn this if we want to avoid the pitfalls that all singers face.