NOISE: Dead and Alive

Without Jello, should the Dead Kennedys still exist?

Richard Abowitz

The Dead Kennedys were the most influential underground hard-core band of the '80s. A fan since I was 13 years old, I have written about why this group should not tour or perform sets comprised entirely of old material as the Dead Kennedys without the original singer, front man and provocateur Jello Biafra. Here, Klaus Flouride, the band's bass player, explains his view. No opinions were changed except that I promise to no longer call Flouride "a whorish zombie" and will henceforth and forthwith begin saying he is a nice guy making an error in judgment.



Are you surprised by the continuing interest in the Dead Kennedys?


I can't say I am surprised; I can say I am flattered. We are happy that people still care about what our message was, and how our songs sound. We broke up originally in 1986. We were more surprised, say, in '88-'89 that things were still building. Basically, a group breaks up and their stuff is bought and the people lose interest in it. It said something about the Kennedys that the interest rate just kept gaining, even without any promotion. It confirmed to us what we thought about ourselves: that we were a good band and possibly one of the better bands. But you think that in any band you're in. But that doesn't always get verified.



The front man of the Dead Kennedys was Jello Biafra ...


He was the singer, the person who put himself visually in the active spot.



So, what would you say his role was in the band?


It is one of those deals with the whole being greater than the sum of the parts. The songs and how everything was done was collaborative. You have to look at what each of us has individually produced since then sounds completely different than the Kennedys. But the Kennedys as a team basically worked really well. It was almost a family thing.



Would you consider Jello's contribution essential to the Dead Kennedys?


Yeah, I consider his contribution essential. I also consider my contribution essential. I consider Ray's contribution essential. I think that we would not have sounded like we sounded without Ted's drumming work in the beginning and then D.H. Peligro later. When D.H. came in the sound of the band changed, because again it was the sum of the parts. We worked all together, all of us, to go toward a common vision and that worked for a good eight years.



But by touring without Biafra you are betraying that vision.


I know you feel passionately about this and so do we. But we earned the right to call ourselves who we are. If your parents die you don't go and change your last name, because your parents were an important part of your life. We are still who we are, and we don't think we are misrepresenting to the public, because we put it out there that Jeff Penalty is the singer and he is very good at being himself. He doesn't do Biafra. But the songs are actually more important or more relevant than they were the first time around, because, unfortunately, a lot of the issues that were covered have gotten worse.



But why not change the band name?


Why?



Because Biafra isn't there and he made an essential contribution.


I said we all made an essential contribution. But we changed the drummer and we didn't change the name of the band.



Do you honestly believe that the drummer contributed as much to the personality of the Dead Kennedys as Jello Biafra?


I believe we wouldn't have sounded like Dead Kennedys. Biafra by himself with another group of musicians, the whole thing would have sounded differently. There were a lot of bands out there that sounded like Ramones knock-offs or Sex Pistols knockoffs: That was the standard mold. My opinion is that we sounded markedly different from any other band, because we had a trademark sound and it wasn't just Biafra's input ...



To me, the Dead Kennedys were the American Sex Pistols, only more prolific. But would you see the Sex Pistols touring without Johnny Rotten?


I've seen Johnny Rotten go on tour doing "Anarchy in the UK" with PIL.



But you can tour doing "Kill the Poor" and use any other name.


Well, we can go back and forth on this. I am not going to convince you because you made up your mind. You are not seeing that the band evolves and still remains the band. You are looking at it from when you were 14 and you are stuck with that image of what the band has to be. I disagree that we shouldn't be allowed to call ourselves Dead Kennedys as long as we make it clear that Biafra is not there so that people know what they are buying and coming to see. A lot of people were in the same position as you thinking that this is not going to be the same thing. They came and they saw that it is not exactly the same thing, but it is really good.

  • Get More Stories from Thu, Feb 24, 2005
Top of Story