"Is That All There Is?" 50th anniversary digital-only edition

Capitol Records is issuing a digital Expanded Edition of Peggy Lee's is that all there is? album from 1969. There are three additional tracks added to the original ten: a remix of Is That All There Is?, a different version of Me And My Shadow and an alternative take of Is That All There Is?

The full album is listed on Amazon as being available on November 15, 2019. The alternative version of Me And My Shadow is currently available for download. It is take 13 of the version recorded in January, 1969 with orchestral backing. The version on the original vinyl album is with a small group backing.

The tracks from the new digital album as listed on Amazon are:

1 Is That All There Is?
2 Love Story
3 Me And My Shadow
4 My Old Flame
5 I'm A Woman
6 Brother Love's Travelling Salvation Show
7 Something
8 Whistle For Happiness
9 Johnny (Linda)
10 Don't Smoke In Bed
11 Is That All There Is? (Remix Version)
12 Me And My Shadow (Alternate Version)
13 Is That All There Is? (Alternate Take)

We've just launched a page about this release on PeggyLee.com -- it's available here:

[www.peggylee.com]

Digital only?

What a shame?

Isn't it realised that many of those most interested in this will be people with a preference for CDs or vinyl?

Couldn't agree more - no physical CD, no purchase, sorry...…!

As physical audio media is going the way of the dodo (whether we like it or not, and I don't), I suspect Capitol/Universal bases decisions on what to issue physically on sales projections. I like to think this reissue is worth getting in digital download format on the basis of the unreleased material alone — but then, I'm biased, as I produced the remixes of two of the tracks.

I'm fairly sure a "boycott" of the digital-only release would have the opposite effect from prompting Universal to press up records/CDs, instead confirming their most pessimistic assessments of its sales potential (and that of other Peggy Lee releases). But, you should only buy what you want, regardless.

Naturally, I will lobby for the new material to be included in a centennial Peggy Lee boxed set, assuming such a product is in the works for 2020. In the meantime, this is the only way this reissue and its previously unreleased material are going to be available for the foreseeable future.

Happened to catch most of a program on Siriusly Sinatra yesterday devoted to a discussion of the upcoming release. Besides featuring "our own" Holly Foster-Wells and Peter Stoller, it included Mike Stoller, and was moderated by Charles Pignone. Holly's take on ITATI (the song) is opposite mine, although I see her point. My assessment has always been that the singer is in a state of apathy and depression — having suffered too many traumas, unable to care anymore, unable to find meaning or purpose, turning to booze as the only solace. Holly insisted that the singer means the exact opposite. That the song is one of life-affirming defiance. My words now, that it might be thought a precursor of Sondheim’s “I’m Still Here,” amounting to something like, “Bring it on, world. You’ve tried to kill me every way you can. But you’re never going to, until it’s time.” I’m not utterly convinced by Holly’s take (after all, calling the afterlife "that final disappointment” sounds pretty hopeless and depressed to me), but it was food for thought. One might conclude that the song is answering its own question by saying, “Yes, this IS all there is, so you better make the most of it."

I don't think art is ever limited to only one valid interpretation — at least, not good art. Jerry, Peggy, Mike, Holly, and I have five different viewpoints about the song, and none of us can tell anyone else they're wrong. I can only offer that Jerry's line about "that final disappointment" was part of what he called "a German joke," rather than a literal assessment. Still, regardless of intention, I think whatever you can take from the song is true.

I can't readily distinguish the differences between the alternate take and the commercial version. Granted, the instrumental mix is different, but presumably, the vocal would be different as well, but both takes sound very much the same.

I understand the released take (37) contains several vocal edits, so I'm guessing that some of the vocal elements in the alternate (take 30?) made it to the master. But still...

Any insights into the alternate version would be appreciated! Thanks!

Ted, I can provide some insights into the alternate versions—the "straight remix" and the "alternate take" (which isn't the most accurate description)—and I will do so soon in a post about the song/recording/mix. But briefly, and at the risk of this being a spoiler for whatever else I write: if you've only heard the recordings via the Sirius broadcast, then you haven't really heard the differences because—at least in the copy I received—the audio quality for the radio show was not particularly good. If you purchase the digital versions, you should have a much better idea, though I confess I haven't yet heard how Universal mastered the tracks for download. It's quite possible they made the original and remixed tracks sound more similar to each other, which is an appropriate goal in album mastering.

With specific regard to the vocal, we did not have 30+ takes from which to work. Rather, we had only the final eight-track master reel that was used to make the released version. The straight remix uses the exact same composite vocal performance as the original release, but we took advantage of the digital domain to recreate the composite for cleaner sound, achieve better sound matching between phrases from different takes, and eliminate artifacts from bad punches between takes that are present in the original mix. The goal was not to get a dramatically different vocal, but rather the opposite: to preserve the original master performance, only with better sonics. The "alternate take" is identical to the remix save for one small, but highly significant, vocal phrase.

The instrumental remix is more dramatic, as one might expect. The original mix is all hard left-right-center because early stereo mixing desks didn't have pan pots, just three-position switches. We sought to create a more realistic soundstage. Of course, that led to some differences in EQ and balance as well, not for the sake of difference but to bring out the best of what was recorded that day, and to optimize the relationship between the orchestral backing and the vocal.

If you have any specific questions, I'll be happy to answer them if I can.

Hi Pete,

Thank you very much for taking the time to answer my query regarding the "alternate take" and the instrumental remix of "Is That All There Is." I sincerely appreciate the information, which makes listening to these downloads all the more enjoyable.

And thanks to Ivan's wonderful sessionography, I quickly discovered that small, significant phrase early on, and that was a nice revelation.

PS: I actually recall shortly after the single was released, William B. Williams, who was a major radio personality on New York's WNEW (AM), made the song sound so controversial! He probably spent the good part of one show focusing on it.

Thanks again, and I very much look forward to your forthcoming post.

Quote:

pstoller
Ted, I can provide some insights into the alternate versions—the "straight remix" and the "alternate take" (which isn't the most accurate description)—and I will do so soon in a post about the song/recording/mix. The straight remix uses the exact same composite vocal performance as the original release, but we took advantage of the digital domain to recreate the composite for cleaner sound, achieve better sound matching between phrases from different takes, and eliminate artifacts from bad punches between takes that are present in the original mix. The "alternate take" is identical to the remix save for one small, but highly significant, vocal phrase. If you have any specific questions, I'll be happy to answer them if I can.

Hi Again, Pete,

Just one more question that I'll bother you with regarding the restoration (alternate) mix. Since the elements used were sourced from the 8 track composite master as opposed to any existing outtakes, I was just curious if the alternate vocal phrase was from a second vocal take on the multitrack, or some alternate discovered source.

Thank you again for sharing your information on this. I very much enjoy this expanded album.

Ted

Quote:

TedP
Just one more question that I'll bother you with regarding the restoration (alternate) mix. Since the elements used were sourced from the 8 track composite master as opposed to any existing outtakes, I was just curious if the alternate vocal phrase was from a second vocal take on the multitrack, or some alternate discovered source.

First, feel free to ask as many questions as you like. I can always refuse to answer them.

Second, the alternate phrase was on the master reel, which was the final live take plus vocal overdubs to help make the composite vocal track.

Quote:

pstoller
First, feel free to ask as many questions as you like. I can always refuse to answer them.

Second, the alternate phrase was on the master reel, which was the final live take plus vocal overdubs to help make the composite vocal track.

Fair enough!

It is interesting that the preferred phrase would seemingly have been available to include on the commercial release, yet the other one was used. Perhaps there were technical issues that made that particular edit problematic at the time.

And I'll take you up on your offer and ask yet one more question (!): in the course of reviewing the tapes for the expanded edition, I was curious if there was any insight into the so-called "short version" and the demo version of the song that's listed in the sessionography for October 1969. I understand that it is not known whether these later versions were unique recordings or abridged versions of the existing January master.

Again, my sincerely thanks for taking the time to reply.

Yes, there were technical issues that prevented them from using the alternate phrase, which would otherwise have been preferred. More on that later. No, there was no indication of anything related to the short version: chances are that would have been a straightforward edit of the stereo master (excising one or two verses), which would not have been in evidence on the multitrack.

Thank you for the clarification, Pete.