Dead Kennedys: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:03, 5 July 2006

Revision as of 15:36, 5 July 2006

Line 40:

==Internal conflicts==

It was discovered in the late 1990s that there were issues with the payments each band member had received from their record label [[Alternative Tentacles]]. Former band members claimed that Jello Biafra had conspired to pay less royalty rates to the band members. Although both sides agreed that the failure to pay these royalties was an accounting mistake, they took issue with the fact that Biafra failed to inform the band of the mistake after he and his co-workers discovered it. Biafra claims that their lawyers had told him only to correspond through lawyers and not directly with the band, as the conflict over payment had apparently arisen before the accounting mistake was discovered. Both sides claim they attempted to resolve the matter without legal action, but the ultimately complicated legal dispute (involving royalties, publishing rights, and a number of other issues) soon led to the courts, where Biafra was found liable for the royalties and guilty of fraud and malice, [http://www.phillaw.com/html/dkappeal.html Appeal Verdict, ''Dead Kennedys v. Jello Biafra'']. Biafra's appeal was denied; he had to pay the outstanding feesroyalties and damages, and was forced to hand over the rights to the majority of Dead Kennedys' back catalogue to the three,Decay whoMusic claimedpartnership. The courts also found from evidence presented by both sides that the [[songwriting credits]] were due to the entire band. (Jello had received sole songwriting credit for most Dead Kennedys songs on all released albums for the last 20 years or so without complaints from the band, though a minority of songs had given credit to certain group members or the entire band as a whole, indicating a system designed to reflect the primary composers rather than a regimented system like the Jagger/Richards partnership; today, most Kennedys reissues list the songwriters as "Biafra, Dead Kennedys" indicating Biafra's lyrical contributions -- which the band doesn't dispute, or else simply as "Dead Kennedys"). However, the online database of [[Broadcast Music Incorporated|BMI]] still retains the original songwriting credits. Ray, suggestingFlouride aand possible attempt at revisionism by East Bay Ray. The Ray/Flouride/Peligro triumvirate found new distribution through another label, [[Manifesto Records]].

This dispute was hotly contested by all concerned who felt passionately for their cause, and the case caused minor waves within punk circles. Many fans felt the three's lawsuit against Jello was motivated by greed, as they had numerous unsuccessful solo records and gigs after the band's break-up (Biafra was by far the most prolific and successful of the four). In addition, Biafra claims that guitarist [[East Bay Ray]] had long expressed displeasure with [[Alternative Tentacles]] and with the amount of money he received from them, thus the original incentive for the discovery of the back payments. (In a related instance, Biafra recalled during the 2005 Nardwuar interview that Ray had called Biafra at the Texas studio the latter was working on his [[1994]] album ''[[Prairie Home Invasion]]'' and, in Biafra's words, "yelled at me for over an hour, claiming that I ruined his life because we didn't sign with Polydor."<ref name="polydor">Nardwuar the Human Serviette, December 2005 interview with Jello Biafra and The Melvins, as reproduced in [http://www.alternativetentacles.com/batcasts/batcast-013-2006_04_25.m4a Alternative Tentacles Batcast #15, April 25, 2006]</ref>) Some observers felt that although Biafra did not try to cheat his band in any way (as he does not take a salary from Alternative Tentacles), his sneering, irreverent attitude did not endear him to jurors during the trial. Biafra accused the band of wanting to license the famous Dead Kennedys song "[[Holiday in Cambodia]]" for use in a [[Levi's]] jeans commercial, which the band denied. Biafra apparently pushed this issue in court, although there was no hard evidence and the jurors were apparently unconcerned with corporate use of independently produced political music. Biafra would later complain that the jury was not sympathetic towards underground music and punk culture. The song never appeared in a Levi's commercial, although in interviews Biafra described the situation surrounding the commercial in detail and was able to give specifics about the advertisement, including the name of the advertising agency that had created the commercial's script.