After he's paid out for all that, he should rename the band "Broke Benjamin"! HAYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
My whole thing about people attacking their music credibility because of "Court documents" "court filings" "attorneys" "allegations" "band's lawyer" is a really poor arguement. When you create something and become sucessful with it, the artist or band should protect their rights. Also, if you agree to terms, and you break the terms, that's personal integrity that is in question. I feel the band did what's right to protect the interest of the band. If you sit there and shoot down their credibility because they agreed to the terms to sit as a band and decide where they want their music going to, that's a downright ignorant thing to say. Quit trolling and shooting the band down because they tried to protect the direction of their music.
I'm pretty sure Jordan's comments about all of this court, legal bullshit and their credibility as musicians were two seperate subjects in his post. I'm inclined to agree, but, man, "Blow Me Away" during whatever Halo game that was... awesome.
/piles on Every major band needs (and has) an attorney otherwise they will not make a living. Music law is insanity, and no one should face a record label on their own. That's a crazy conclusion to draw. I suppose if you ever get ripped of you won't "sell out" and hire an attorney, or are musicians for some reason held to a higher standard than everyone else? This sell-out fad needs to end. I'm very sad that this band gets ripped apart by their personal issues, but their musical integrity survives despite that.
If I was in "Breaking Benjamin" and my band mates agreed to rerecord/remix a song, I think I'd probably just tell them that was a bad idea and get the fuck over it. I wouldn't say "OH MY GOD THIS IS NOT IN MY INTERESTS I'M TAKING THIS TO THE COURTS". How is one rerecording going to change the "direction" of their music anyway? Think a little more about the situation dude. They shouldn't be making a living off generic three-chord emotional rock songs. That's probably the basis for most of the arguments I had, and as you obviously disagree most of the statement, I'll allow major label bands to have attorneys. HOWEVER, in this situation they were offered $100,000 to rerecord one fucking song - so obviously they aren't using their attorneys to defend themselves from the record label, but rather to settle useless quarrels between band members that didn't realise that being a ROCK STAR isn't a very high paying job in 2011. I never said sell out, so don't put it in inverted commas. "Their" musical integrity doesn't survive btw, they're putting out a greatest hits ffs.
So...I think you misunderstood my "direction of their music" and "Where their music is going to." I in no way meant that as creative writing. I meant it as an outlet of where their protected rights music was going. The point is that a decision was made without all parties knowing or agreeing upon it. This was done behind the back. If anything, going to the court should have saved the integrity of the band. Perhaps Ben thought what they were doing was selling out their music. That seems like a pretty legit arguement to me. It also seems like something to get pissed off about. If, however, he was okay with selling a remix out, how much of the cut in the profit was he left out since he was in no way a part in the remix decision making? Yeah, money shouldn't play a role with how music get's made, however, if you were in the group and you got the shaft, you're telling me you wouldn't be pissed off about that? Like it or not, bands deserve to get paid. That's thier product. A byproduct of making music is getting paid for it. I have no qualms with giving my hard earned money to a band that I think deserves it. To go on your little "I think I'd probably just tell them that was a bad idea and get the fuck over it" tangent, They most likely also had an arguement before Ben took them to court. Although that could not be proven, one would have to assume that they tried settling it on their own. Why the hell not? We all have the right to make our living however we see fit. If something doesn't sound good to you, that in no way means it's not good. At least not to everybody. You've made your statement here of not liking their music because it is "generic." I have yet to hear another band that sounds exactly like Breaking Benjamin. Also, their "generic three-chord emotional rock songs" are more multi-dimentional then you're leading on. There are plenty of parts while listening to their albums, which I can assume you're completely ignorant about, that I know for a fact rips your "generic" label apart. Yeah, their music sounds like Rock music because, get this, they are a rock band. They never claimed to be anything more than that. I'd also like to point out that Ben Burnley has a voice that is far from "Generic." It's quite unique, actually...
The "Best Of" album was released today and the singles (aside from Rain) are on it, plus the Deluxe Edition has a bunch of live/acoustic tracks and a few unreleased demos, and a studio recording of Enjoy the Silence which is really good.