Nomeansno (sometimes stylized as NoMeansNo or spelled No Means No) was a Canadian punk rock band formed in Victoria, British Columbia and later relocated to Vancouver. They issued 11 albums, including a collaborative album with Jello Biafra, as well as numerous EPs and singles. Critic Martin Popoff described their music as "the mightiest merger between the hateful aggression of punk and the discipline of heavy metal."[1] Nomeansno's distinct hardcore punk sound, complex instrumentation,[2] and dark, "savagely intelligent" lyrics inspired subsequent musicians. They are often considered foundational in the punk jazz and post-hardcore movements,[3][4] and have been cited as a formative influence on the math rock and emo genres.[5]
“No” Means “No”3
Guitarist Tom Holliston, and briefly second drummer Ken Kempster, joined in 1993, and Nomeansno continued touring and recording extensively while operating their own Wrong Records label. After three further LPs, they left Alternative Tentacles and issued their final album, All Roads Lead to Ausfahrt, in 2006. They were inducted into the Western Canadian Music Hall of Fame in 2015,[7] and announced their retirement the following year.
In 1979 and at age 25, Rob Wright returned to his family's home in Victoria after studying in Calgary.[8] John Wright, Rob's younger brother by eight years, played drums in the school jazz band, and the two were inspired to play punk rock after seeing D.O.A. perform at the University of Victoria.[9] They began rehearsing in their parents' basement in 1979,[8] and took the name Nomeansno from an anti-date rape slogan that was found on a graffitied wall.[10][9] They also briefly gigged as the rhythm section for the local cover band Castle.[8]
Nomeansno recorded its earliest material in the months that followed on a TASCAM four-track recorder, with Rob playing electric guitar and bass, John playing keyboards and drums, and both brothers singing. Some of these recordings were issued as their first two self-released 7"s, the "Look, Here Come the Wormies / SS Social Service" single (a 1980 split with Mass Appeal, whose recording lineup featured both Wright Brothers), and the Betrayal, Fear, Anger, Hatred EP of 1981.
The Infamous Scientists disbanded in 1983, and their guitarist and vocalist Andy Kerr joined Nomeansno several months later.[9][14][8] Kerr brought a distinct hardcore punk edge to Nomeansno's sound, creating a buzz-saw guitar tone by playing through a Fender Bassman amplifier and a P.A. speaker. Nomeansno became a fixture in the British Columbia punk scene despite playing music that did not always conform to punk rock standards. The You Kill Me EP in 1985 on the Undergrowth Records imprint exhibited their experimental sound on dark and ponderous songs like "Body Bag" and a cover of "Manic Depression" by Jimi Hendrix. The three also began performing Ramones covers and more traditional punk music as The Hanson Brothers, a side project that would later receive more of their attention.
In 1993, the brothers assembled material for a sixth Nomeansno LP and recorded Why Do They Call Me Mr. Happy? as a duo. AllMusic critic Ned Raggett later praised the album's balance, arguing that it reached dark and sinister depths while also exhibiting subtler and more introspective moments.[18] The Wrights also compiled the collection Mr. Right & Mr. Wrong: One Down & Two to Go, comprising early demos, studio outtakes, and additional material, which was released on Wrong the following year.
For touring in support of Why Do They Call Me Mr. Happy?, Nomeansno assembled their first four-piece lineup, completed by Hanson Brothers guitarist Holliston and second drummer Ken Kempster. Holliston replaced Kerr as their full-time guitarist, while Kempster went on to tour sporadically with Nomeansno over the next four years.
The first Nomeansno album to feature Holliston was The Worldhood of the World (As Such), released in 1995. Receiving its title from philosopher Martin Heidegger's seminal text Being and Time, the album featured simpler and more melodic songs than its predecessors[19] while nonetheless retaining the band's "taste for blood and gristle."[13] After focusing briefly on the Hanson Brothers and releasing their second LP, Sudden Death, Nomeansno followed with the EPs Would We Be Alive? and In the Fishtank 1, each featuring a cover of "Would We Be Alive?" by The Residents.
The band left Alternative Tentacles in 2002, and began slowly reissuing their back catalogue through Wrong and distributors Southern Records. With new drummer Ernie Hawkins, The Hanson Brothers released their third album, My Game, later that year. Nomeansno continued touring extensively, but ultimately took six years to release their next album. In the meantime, they issued the best-of compilation The People's Choice.
Their tenth studio album, All Roads Lead to Ausfahrt, was released on August 22, 2006, by AntAcidAudio in the United States and Southern in Europe. AllMusic critic Jo-Ann Greene praised the album's exhausting diversity as befitting of the band's legacy and career-spanning accomplishments.[23] Greene wrote that with the record Nomeansno travel "yet again through the undergrowth and underbelly of the rock realm, and with all the piss and vinegar that they started out with a quarter century ago."[23]
The band toured frequently in the years that followed, but ceased recording albums. Fang drummer Mike Branum joined The Hanson Brothers in 2008.[8] In 2010, Nomeansno digitally released outtakes and demos from the 0 + 2 = 1 sessions as 0 + 2 = 1 . They next released two four-track EPs, Tour EP 1 (alternatively known as Old) and Tour EP 2 (alternatively Jubilation). They continued performing live through 2013, and toured as The Hanson Brothers in the following year with Byron Slack on drums, but entered a hiatus thereafter.
Holliston continued to perform with The Showbusiness Giants and release solo albums, while John Wright began working as musical director for the all-robot rock band Compressorhead. In 2015, Nomeansno was inducted into the Western Canadian Music Hall of Fame.[7] They played an acoustic set at the awards ceremony, and a Ramones cover set (with Slack on drums) on New Year's Eve, which became their final public appearances. Holliston announced his departure from the band in August 2016. On September 24, John Wright announced the band's official retirement.[24]
2003 saw the arrest of the star basketball player Kobe Bryant on charges of forcing a woman to have sex with him, charges that were dropped in 2004. This arrest is perhaps the most prominent in what has become a sordid procession of public shame: the charging of professional athletes with crimes of sexual assault. As is common in rape charges, neither party denies that the sex took place. Instead the argument is based on whether the woman consented to it. In the apology Bryant issued that led to the dismissal of the charges, he admits that "[a]lthough I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not." Central to the consideration of consent has been the much- affirmed concept that "no means no." In short, the standard means that, if an individual verbally rejects sexual advances, that person must be seen as withdrawing consent to sexual contact. "No means no" has been a rallying cry for the on-campus feminist movement. Despite its utter simplicity and apparent reasonableness, supporters of "no means no" are still having to make their case on a daily basis, and apparently many still believe that a woman's outright verbal rejection of sexual advances does not, in and of itself, create a case of rape against a man who engages in sexual intercourse with the woman. For example, columnist Gregg Easterbrook, examining the Kobe Bryant case, opines that "the reality of human interaction is that 'no' does not always mean no. Maybe half the sex in world history has followed an initial 'no.' " Such opinions base themselves not infrequently on the findings of surveys such as that done in 1988 at Texas A&M University. This survey found that 39.3 percent of the female undergraduates surveyed sometimes said no, although they "had every intention to and were willing to engage in sexual intercourse." Although this and other studies showed that "no" does mean "no" for most women, some interpreting these results cite them as evidence that the word "no" confuses some men. The "no means no" standard, despite its apparent simplicity, is under attack by those who claim that it is simply not true-that in many dating cases "no" may not actually mean no. The intent of this Note is not to present such attacks as persuasive; they are not and were refuted in the 1998 Texas A&M University study, Muelenhard and Hollabough's original work. They are still made, however, and these arguments show how the "no means no" movement has failed to establish itself as the common sense position it portrays itself as. That debate still exists about whether a woman has been raped, when she has explicitly stated that she does not wish to engage in sexual intercourse but was ignored by her partner, who proceeded to have sex with her, is a sign of the failure of "no means no" to come into the mainstream. More importantly, court decisions acquitting men of rape where there is no doubt that the woman has indeed said no to sexual intercourse indicate that "no means no" is far from being the accepted legal standard. The purpose of this Note, then, is to address the present situation regarding the law of rape in the United States and to advance the view that only a standard of affirmative consent can effectively grant women control over their participation in sexual encounters. The Note justifies the affirmative consent standard by looking at its effect on the behavior of men and women and on -society at large. Far from creating a license for the vindictive behavior of a "woman scorned" as suggested by some commentators, a requirement to obtain the affirmative consent of a prospective sexual partner acts as a protective barrier (or prophylaxis) against future unfounded claims of rape. It contends that the introduction of an affirmative consent standard would not only incentivize rational behavior on the part of both women and men in dating situations but that such a shift in the law would potentially shift public perceptions of women and their role in sexual relationships. Finally, this Note considers the primary criticisms leveled at the affirmative consent standard. An affirmative consent standard will not destroy intimacy and romance as many fear. Such a requirement is already the norm in some less traditional forms of sexuality, such as sadomasochism, and may be defended as a path to greater closeness between partners in all forms of sexual relationships. Finally, affirmative consent standards are subject to attack from some more radical feminists, who argue that no consent to sex can ever be seen as genuine in a male dominated world. Section II attempts to define rape as it will be discussed in this Note. It starts with the traditional view of the crime of rape and briefly discusses the historical development of the crime, looking in particular at how that development has colored present attitudes towards consent standards. It then turns to what is the hidden majority of rape cases-"date" or "acquaintance rape." Section III looks to the present laws of three states and discusses cases from them that demonstrate the effects of different consent standards.16 Section TV considers how an affirmative consent standard would be justified, and how it would affect the behavior of men and women on an ongoing basis, as well as the effect such a standard would have on society. Finally, Section V addresses the most prevalent criticisms, both scholarly and popular, leveled at affirmative consent, and concludes that they are either invalid or insufficient to outweigh the benefits to all participants of such a standard. 2ff7e9595c
Comments