Nothing: Guilty of Everything

While offering shockingly little beyond what was already on offer by the mid-90s, this beautifully cynical debut comes at a cost.


Guilty of Everything

Label: Relapse
US Release Date: 2014-03-03
Label Website
Artist Website

Not a week goes by without an album release or song premiere from a fresh-faced band described by publicists and bloggers in comparison with some inactive or recently reunited '90s alt act they most resemble. So evident is the impairment -- or, less kindly, the failure -- of modern rock music that contemporary artists flop around in the swingin’ sounds of yesteryear in the hopes of absorbing some of its spent mojo. Real or imagined, emo revivals and shoegaze surges inevitably cast bitterly cold daylight on just how much better we believe the originals did things in comparison with these millennial wannabes, stoking some arguably well-deserved resentment. A drug taken enough times to qualify as abuse leaves a pining for those first furtive fixes.

Any rage against this unsavory sort of plunderous vampirism, however, ought to be a low-grade rage, one that steadily simmers rather than impotently explodes. Indeed, the more one screams about it, the more one invites dismissive retorts of ageism, and rightly so. Still, we ought not excuse Nothing from their obvious sin simply because they've done such a damn good job of it. Lazily likenable to the ferocious squall of My Bloody Valentine and the tenderized toil of early Sunny Day Real Estate, Guilty of Everything offers shockingly little beyond what was already on offer by the mid-'90s. Yet as it so happens, the record fares remarkably better than most of those moldy oldies they’ve already been compared with, albeit for banal reasons.

That, then, is perhaps the greater blasphemy. Reissue campaigns and reunion tours touted by blogs batter us into submission, into accepting that what came before was the correct form, that all which follows will be somehow insufficient and in some way unsatisfactory. Nothing eviscerate that fallacious logic simply by releasing a full-length debut superior by design to those of the former touchpoints. Here is the point where you, conditioned listener and content consumer, will likely turn your brain off in fitful protest: Guilty of Everything is better than Souvlaki, better than The Comforts of Madness or Spooky or LP2 (The Pink Album). This isn’t to suggest that Guilty of Everything is some perfect record. Instead, it’s come time to concede in retrospect that shoegaze -- that muddled, muddy subgenre born of music media narrative -- wasn’t all that great and that, in our time of online ever-presence and ubiquity, a formula for artistic success can be crowdsourced.

Still, anyone framing Nothing as mere shoegaze nostalgia act suffers from the myopia of segmentation. How else could anyone listening to opener “Hymn for the Pillory” not pick up on the booming megalomaniacal grandeur of Mellon Collie-period Smashing Pumpkins or the manipulative faux-epics of M83? Single “Dig” regurgitates Side B of Hum’s You’d Prefer an Astronaut, while “Somersault” wallows in the same space as the Cure’s dusty glower. “Beat Around The Bush” and “Endlessly” so accurately evoke emo tropes that one might almost overlook how efficiently“Get Well” swipes from The Jesus And Mary Chain.

Is it unfair to dissect Nothing’s music in this fashion, a cruel and clinical cataloging? Not when the mimicry is so brazen and deliberate, the well-timed IPO of a full length debut. After all, labels, publicists, and artists alike regularly engage in this sort of tagging behavior on the other end. This extreme measure -- a form of civil disobedience on the part of this lumbering greying critic -- comes about because Guilty of Everything is beautiful cynicism, perfectly titled, and holistically designed to be loved within tenths of a percent by the target demo. Our lazy complicity as listeners and consumers, those who ultimately demand the references that others make, led to this terrific sounding slab of sonic nihilism. We deserve Nothing.


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.