 |
During April 2004, Omnibus Press issued Joel McIver's 'Justice For All: The Truth About Metallica', which has since been translated into several languages. His sixth book at the time, his previous books up until then included the likes of 'Extreme Metal' (2000), and 'Slipknot: Unmasked' (2001). The tome's foreword was written by Celtic Frost's Tom Gabriel Fischer, and aside from roughly five percent of interview material, the book boasts fully exclusive interview material. To gain such material, McIver interviewed more than seventy-five musicians, producers, writers, band associates and family members, all connected to Metallica in some shape or form. Over five years have elapsed since then, and McIver's bibliography has vastly increased, with the following accredited to the man; 'No One Knows: The Queens Of The Stone Age Story' (2005), 'Sabbath Bloody Sabbath' (2006), 'The Bloody Reign Of Slayer' (2008), and 'The 100 Greatest Metal Guitarists' (2009). With June 2009's 'To Live Is To Die: The Life And Death Of Metallica's Cliff Burton', McIver further established himself as an authority on Metallica.
In October 2009, '
Justice For All' was published in its third edition. Included is a new chapter which mainly focuses on 2008's '
Death Magnetic', as well as the Quietus saga, where Joel McIver penned an early review of the album under the name
Bob Mulhouse, a review (along with others) that Metallica's management initially attempted to suppress. To discuss '
Justice For All', McIver was interviewed via email.
'Justice For All: The Truth About Metallica' was originally released in April 2004 through Omnibus Press. What were your motives for writing the book? Tackling such a subject must've been a daunting prospect.
It was. I had five books already on the market but they were much shorter than 'Justice For All': it was my first really big biography, at 150,000 words. I was working full-time at Record Collector magazine when I was writing it, so I knew that time management would be important. In the end the scale of the thing wasn't too much of a problem: I did have to rush at the end because our first child was about to arrive, but I had over a year to get the research done.
My motives? I remember very clearly that I wanted to do a Metallica book because there wasn't one already out that really covered their story in depth. There were one or two decent attempts at a 'Tallica biog, notably 'Unbound' (1993) by their first fanclub manager KJ Doughton - who has since become a friend of mine - but nothing that included the 'Load' years and after. My other reason for doing the book was that I've been a Metallica fan since the mid-eighties and have followed their career with almost unhealthy levels of interest. I'm a fanboy, me.
Lars Ulrich has commented that he's asked to autograph copies of the book frequently. Do you feel that is a testament to its success, or were there certain aspects of the first edition you felt you could've tackled better?
Both. The fact that Metallica fans worldwide bring my book to the band's meet-and-greets blows my mind: it's a huge compliment. There are at least eight foreign-language editions, so the poor guy is probably plagued with them! But it is a good book, there's no doubt about that. I definitely went in quite hard with some of my opinions about the later albums, and lots of Metallica's younger and / or more insecure fans have written to me complaining about that - but nobody with any genuine perspective on the ups and downs of Metallica's career has disagreed fundamentally with what I wrote. It's still obvious by the end of the book that I'm a huge, huge fan of the band, and of the thousands of emails I've received on the subject since 2004 I'd say that over ninety percent have been positive.
There are certain areas that I could have devoted more time to in the book, but overall it's a reasonably well-balanced picture. One annoying thing is that I got Kirk Hammett's date of birth wrong in the first edition - which is a pretty stupid mistake to make, as he has it tattooed on his stomach - and lots of whining sheep have written emails to me about that… reasonably enough I suppose.
Celtic Frost's Tom Gabriel Fischer wrote a foreword for the book, and for such a book, you likely had a wide range of appropriate people you could've asked to provide such a foreword. How did Tom Fischer's involvement come about, and why did you feel he'd be the most appropriate man for the task at hand?
I wanted someone whose stature was equal to Metallica's to write the foreword. Obviously Celtic Frost never sold a tenth as many albums as Metallica, but their influence was huge and the two bands played on the same circuit back in the eighties. Tom is a hero of mine - I used to play 'Into The Pandemonium' all the time as a teenager - and it was an incredible honour to have him onboard. I still remember the day he phoned me at my office, I was speechless. A year ago the icing on the cake came when he asked me to write an introduction to his forthcoming Hellhammer autobiography, 'Only Death Is Real', which is coming out shortly on Bazillion Points. Something to tell the grandchildren, for sure.
"'Justice For All' was my first really big biography."
I interviewed about seventy-five people for the Metallica book. In 2002 the web wasn't quite what it is today (no MySpace or Facebook) but you could still track down, say, members of Testament by emailing their webmaster. That's mostly what I did. I already knew some of the musicians because I'd got to know them as a journalist, so I had access. What surprised me most - and surprised me again last year when I was writing 'To Live Is To Die', my biography of Cliff Burton - was how willing most people were to help out. The original Bay Area bangers - Brian Lew and Ron Quintana among them - really helped me to track interviewees down. There are a few people who I couldn't find that I've since got to know, such as Michael Alago (the Elektra A&R who signed 'Tallica from Megaforce) and Fred Cotton (the singer in Spastik Children), and it would have been great to have them in there too, but that's the way it goes.
Amongst fans of Metallica and Megadeth, an age-old debate is what Dave Mustaine's contribution to early Metallica entails. In your expert opinion, what was Dave Mustaine's actual contribution to early Metallica? Has his contribution been overstated, or underplayed?
Dave gave the band their first really developed musicianship. His playing was more technical than James', and he was only matched in skill when Cliff Burton came on board in early 1983. James eventually went on to become a superb musician, but Dave was more advanced at an earlier age, which helped Metallica take their first steps towards thrash metal. People don't really understand the positive aspects of Dave's brief membership of the band because those things are usually overshadowed by the tension between them. It's a shame, I hope they bury the hatchet permanently someday.
Besides inevitable biographical information, the book also contains detailed reviews of each Metallica album. Rather than a sympathetic, glowing approach, it must be said that you pull no punches and make your feelings clearly known about each album. With that in mind, I'd like to touch upon certain Metallica albums, each of which are sources of contention. Let's begin with 1986's 'Master of Puppets', which many cite as the genre's masterpiece. Is 'Master of Puppets' actually as great as people reckon, or is its greatness overstated?
Like any art, 'Puppets' is only as great as people think it is. However, a hell of a lot of people love it, and for good reason - the songwriting is incredibly accomplished, the riffs are simultaneously catchy as hell and hugely aggressive, and the production is world-class. Also, it came out at the right time: metal needed to take a step up to another level, and thanks to this LP and the other great metal album of 1986 - 'Reign In Blood' - that's exactly what it did.
1991's 'The Black Album' was Metallica's commercial breakthrough, and despite what people may say, is what made the band a stadium rock act on the level of a U2. Some love this album, while others loathe this album. With that in mind, do you feel 'The Black Album' deserves the criticism levelled at it by those who grew up with Metallica's eighties records?
Not at all. It's a landmark album, regardless of whether you actually like the songs or not. Personally I never want to hear "Enter Sandman" or "Holier Than Thou" again, although I still worship at the altar of "Sad But True". With albums like this one, or 'Thriller' (1982, Michael Jackson) or 'Hotel California' (1976, The Eagles) or 'Elvis Presley' (1956, Elvis Presley) or 'Abbey Road' (1969, The Beatles), you have to look beyond the songs and recognise the record's overall impact. In the case of the 'Black Album', it redefined the popular end of heavy music in 1991, alongside 'Blood Sugar Sex Magik' (Red Hot Chili Peppers) and 'Nevermind' (Nirvana).
'Load' and 'ReLoad' were released in 1996 and 1997 respectively, both of which arguably had a jam ethic. Personally, I feel that Metallica should've been more strict, and whittled down those songs to one album - essentially collecting the best of both. Do you agree? And also, what's your view on Metallica's writing approach at this time, their approach being to more or less flesh out any and every idea into a song?
A lot of people say that those two albums could have been reduced down to one and it would have been great, but I'm not sure about that. "Ain't My Bitch" and "Fuel" are semi-decent songs, and the ballads are kind of OK if you're in the mood, but the rest of it is unbelievably limp compared to the previous albums. Lars recently admitted that the band could have edited themselves a bit more carefully back then, but also that their approach at the time didn't allow that to happen. Look, I understand why Metallica had to make 'Load' and 'ReLoad': they needed to explore different directions after fifteen years of straight ahead metal - it's just that the direction they took didn't really work, for the most part.
Six years following 'ReLoad', 'St. Anger' was issued. Is this an album Metallica would rather just forget, or is this an album with some underrated tunes? Your thoughts?
It's horrifically bad. End of story.
'Death Magnetic' was released in September 2008, and is Metallica's ninth studio album. Is it really as good as some critics have suggested?
Without referring to any reviewers in particular, the general reaction seemed to be that Metallica were back and operating at full capacity. A year later, I wonder how many of those critics really play the album that often. I gave it three stars out of five when I reviewed it, and I stand by that today. 'Death Magnetic' was an encouraging step in the right direction, but it doesn't stand up to any Metallica album released before 1993.
"The fact that Metallica fans worldwide bring my book to the band's meet-and-greets blows my mind."
Well, the new edition contains several thousand words on that event, so you'll need to buy the book for the full story - but in brief, I would say that it was basically a communications fuckup between Metallica and their managers at Q-Prime. To this day I don't know why they came over to London to play the songs for the dozen or so of us who were there. I asked Lars why they did it, and he didn't know either. It's no big deal, in retrospect.
Since the issue of 'Death Magnetic' particularly, Metallica has experienced critical acclaim, arguably more so than ever before. In April 2009 even, the group joined Black Sabbath in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. What is Metallica's lasting influence upon the metal world, and even the world of music generally?
Do you have twenty-four hours…? Basically they popularised (not invented) thrash in 1983; promoted the idea of intelligent, musicianly extreme metal in the mid-eighties; saved metal from dying on its arse in '91; and kept it together long enough (despite all manner of intra-band bullshit) in the nineties and noughties to reach the top of the music industry, metal or otherwise. They are the Led Zeppelin of our generation and one of the most important bands ever to walk the earth.
Where do you see Metallica's career venturing from here? Would you possibly draw comparisons to The Rolling Stones, in that their creative peak is arguably well and truly behind them, but the live shows still have the ability to genuinely entertain?
I wouldn't compare them to the Rolling Stones, because the Stones are a joke. That band should have stopped touring when Bill Wyman left. I'd rather compare Metallica to Deep Purple, who may not be at their commercial peak but who still deliver a superb live show and have an immense catalogue of songs. Then again, Metallica are much, much bigger than Purple while being younger and more vital, so it's not really possible to compare them with anybody. But if your point is that Metallica's live shows are more important than the quality of their current albums, I'd agree fully.
Finally, how do you feel about your relationship with Metallica and 'Justice For All'? Do you feel it may go on to define your career, and that you'll forever be known as the man who wrote 'Justice For All'?
That makes me sound a lot more important than I really am - after all, the book has sold forty-thousand copies in five years, which is pretty good but not really comparable to the world's really big authors, whose books shift literally millions of copies per day. But yes, I imagine it will be difficult to write a more successful book than that one on the subject of rock music. That's OK though - most people never get the chance to write a book, let alone one that does well internationally. I have no complaints…
Interview by Robert Gray
Ultimate-Guitar.Com © 2009
That being said...long live Metallica and RIP Cliff