Marvin Gaye's singing isolated in "I Heard It Through The Grapevine"

I would really just bring it up if you get corrected about Heard it Through the Grapevine, otherwise it would not make sense…


It wasn’t a CCR original.

1 Like

My God, that man had a voice.


It was a lame attempt at humor, which failed. Sorry.

1 Like

:slight_smile: part troll, part real desire to hear that mashup :woman_shrugging:

If you’re interested in hearing a live version, here’s Marvin at Montreux in 1980.


Marvin’s isolated vocals are tremendous, but I’ll stay with Marvin plus the Funk Brothers.

No matter how many times I’ve heard this it still has an impact:


I’ve never known anyone who believes the CCR is the original…I think maybe the “CCR original” has become a Troll Trope, if there is such a thing?

1 Like

The man had a marvelous voice, back when singers needed actual talent.

I’m curious if that was a lipsync? Even more awesome if it wasn’t.

1 Like

Well, I personally know people that repeat it in real life, forgetting they have been corrected before … (And I am not talking about myself :smiley:) Maybe they are just specifically torturing me, and I fell so much for it that I thought this was a common thing :man_facepalming:

1 Like

Ok so I showed this to some DJ friends and music folks and they are conflicted.

I for one find this to be magic! But, I suspect some of the performers will be very upset with how this is used. I worry some will get so angry it may revert to vaporware…

Anyone have thoughts about both the utility and the drawbacks at play here?

How do you mean? The video is him lipsyncing to the song for some rando tv variety show or other. Or for a promo video maybe.

Pretty sure this is just the vocal track, there’s no ware, vapor or otherwise that is magically erasing the instrumentation.

Dunno… Seems you get both vocals and musical tracks…

Online version of the software

What would be the drawback?

Cut and paste remixing is as old as taped recordings exist, I guess. This is just more of the same, but with cleaner results. Mashups ARE often really good stuff, as “serious” music or as parodies.

Side note: Actually, modern copyright makes remixing hard already. Old article, but anyway: contains an estimate for cost of clearing samples for the Beastie Boys’ Paul’s Boutique of $20millions about ten years ago.

It could hurt feelings? Say you mashup two songs (I love mashups Girl Talk is so fun) then you have the instrument players from one band and the singer of the other band left out… That could piss somebody off if some popular mash up features everyone but them from their band.

Not that big a deal if you ask me, but other folks can be more sensitive and easily butt hurt than I.

Can you imagine about how Brian Wilson from the Beach Boys would have reacted, or any other of a long list of control freaks who make music.

A DJ friend seemed that it could lower the bar letting less talented folks join the scene. I don’t see a problem with that either, more people doing art is a very good thing according to this mutant!

:smiley: That’s a good point… But do we really need to ensure that the control freaks don’t stop making new music? We can just forever remix their old stuff :wink:

I’d think it is even the other way around: Simpler tools allow more people to express their ideas. You are still free to ignore the crap :wink:

So, yes, I fully agree with your stance.

Are you saying that the Gaye track was isolated using that software? Where is this mentioned?

I’m saying, I think that the vocal track is just that – the vocal track, before being mixed with the instrumental track, and that it wasn’t “extracted” by any method.

@stinkyfoot shared this link:

This Gaye track is one of the examples the developers include as a demonstration.

It’s just crazy! Very cool stuff. I am already have schemes to use this software, yet, I somehow doubt my results will match the coders who wrote this thing.

The Gaye track in the video is NOT from their software. They refer to it as a comparison to their results, which are embedded in the site, and as they say “Some of the background vocals get included in both tracks here, which is probably great for karaoke, but may not be ideal for remixing. Compare this to 1:10 in the studio version (link to video)”

The actual results from the software sound tinny and chopped-off in the phrasing, and there is considerable bleed from the background vocals. It does a good job of isolating the vocals for a software solution, especially considering it starts with the full song. A good option if you don’t have the studio vocal track available.

In short, what is in the video is the studio vocal track, it was not extracted by any software and the existing software solutions don’t come close to capturing the full quality of a true vocal track.