Album Rating: 3.0

I think a lot of people just can't separate hate for a genre and objectively look at a record. Breaking Benjamin make mainstream bro rock but they're good at what they do. Just because I don't like comedy films and think they're inferior to dramas doesn't mean all comedies are graded 2 and below.

Album Rating: 3.5

Finally listened to this today, and as a big Breaking Benjamin fan, I'm pretty happy with what I heard. Granted, I only listened to it once so far, but it's exactly what I wanted it to be. I think JWT hit the nail on the head too.

Album Rating: 3.0

JWT just described Sputnik and, possibly, the entire world.

Album Rating: 2.0

id agree with you jwt but they havent changed or improved their style in the slightest(((imo))) in comparison to bands like chevelle or deftones

and in my opinion they were never special enough to have me consider them 'good at what they do' except for a handful of songs on phobia

Album Rating: 3.5

why are you basing their development on progressions of other bands?

Album Rating: 2.0

im just defending myself against the 'hate for a genre' deal, my position on this album is that its just a rehash of what theyve done before with no significant improvement in quality

Album Rating: 2.0

So what, if the riffs are generic and the lyrics are rehashed words from the last album it gets a free pass just because we acknowledge that "mainstream bro rock" is supposed to sound like that? You need to agree on certain values in music to make valid points, but you can compare it to other styles. You don't have to only compare within the genre or any sort of arbitrary distinctions like that. I compare both the band to itself and to other bands. I think BB slipped up in both areas this time. Phobia was good mainstream rock.

Album Rating: 2.0

angels fall is painfully boring

Album Rating: 3.0

"So what, if the riffs are generic and the lyrics are rehashed words from the last album it gets a free pass just because we acknowledge that "mainstream bro rock" is supposed to sound like that?"



In some regards yes. Mainstream rock IS generic, just like how a majority of comedies have mediocre writing. Am I going to throw a fuss watching Anchorman because it doesn't have the writing prowess of a Scorsese film or the intelligent humor of a Coen Brothers flick? It's like criticizing an artist in cubism that they aren't painting with enough realism. And with the lyrics, are you really turning to Breaking Benjamin for mind opening lyrics? I sure as hell didn't go see the Hangover Films to explore a new theological meaning to life. It's mainstream rock, it's not supposed to have Pulitzer prize winning lyrics, just like when you drive to McDonald's you don't expect the most satisfying burger you've ever had. Their music's purpose is to be easily digestible radio rock and they succeed in doing that.



"You need to agree on certain values in music to make valid points, but you can compare it to other styles. You don't have to only compare within the genre or any sort of arbitrary distinctions like that. I compare both the band to itself and to other bands"



So when I go out to eat, I should always compare my food to that time my boss took me out to the best steak house in the city? God, everything that will ever caress my taste buds will disappoint me for as long as I live... Things should be compared and contrasted to what's similar. Compare fast food with other fast food, rom coms with other romantic comedies, mainstream rock with mainstream rock, and if you compare Breaking Benjamin with the plethora of other mainstream rock bands like Nickelback, Theory of a Deadman, Papa Roach etc they're not that bad. Now obviously you can generally say mainstream rock isn't that great but for what it's trying to achieve it should earn certain accolades.



A good example of why you need to separate comparisons between mediums is art. There is lots of fantastic modern art that, when compared to other forms, is terrible. It lacks realism, many times attention to detail, and objectively can be less of a piece of skill/design/effort than say Michelangelo's David; but it's dishonest to make such a comparison because the artist's vision was never to create such a complicated piece of artwork to begin with.

Album Rating: 2.0

I see your point, but that's why I hate modern art XD I don't think just because an artist doesn't care to please his audience we have to like it. It's not enough to say "it's different so you can't not like it", you have to show why being different is still good. In the case of fast food, well duh it's cheap. If you could get steak dinner for $2 though you'd be fool not to.

I just don't agree with the sentiment that "all genres are created equal", or that just because someone calls one form of music a different genre now you can't criticize it for some things. You're assuming they're not attempting to do the same thing, but I doubt it, and it's irrelevant to me anyways. Mainstream rock is looked down upon for mostly valid reasons, like the riffs are predictably hookless and the lyrics are bad (though the singers are usually good imo). I don't think they purposefully went out to do those things. It's also sort of an arbitrary distinction, because if you tried to describe the sounds the band makes like mid tempos, heavy guitars, etc. someone might think you're describing Black Sabbath, but Black Sabbath isn't generic and terrible and therefor not mainstream rock. So it's not the style so much as it is the end result of being generic. Believe me, when I came to this album I was going in knowing full well BB's weaknesses and it still disappointed me. Phobia has so much more personality and subtlety.

^I'm with Friday here, the concept of comparing things in art evolved over time for a reason

Album Rating: 4.0

"next time they must change something or else even people attached to the band will start to look away"



Agreed, this is exactly what I wanted for their return album but I hope they make more changes to their sound in the future.

Album Rating: 2.5

Ashes of Eden is a "change", but I wouldn't call it the best song. It's something different for them, but not anything revolutionary

Album Rating: 2.0 | Sound Off

even on phobia there was more variation between the songs. breaking the silence, close to heaven, bury me alive, never again, the great divide, defeated are all really similar in tempo and feel. it feels like riff soup or some shit

Album Rating: 2.5

I really don't get the love for Ashes of Eden. No different to any of the other soft songs he's done before. And picking Defeated as the closer is not only odd, but it's one of the worst songs on here.

Album Rating: 3.0

@Friday13th - I respect that. If you think this is a 1 out of 5 that's fine, I just think a lot of people write off things far too easily.

Album Rating: 2.5

Never rated the slower stuff to this band. It just makes me cringe for the most part.

Album Rating: 1.5

Didn't write this off, and dont have hate for the genre. Nice try though.

Phobia and Dear Agony are both 4's for me.

This is just not good.

At all.

Album Rating: 2.5

It's not bad though. I can't stress that enough. I think if this came out straight after Dear Agony it would be a 3 - 3.5 being very generous.

Album Rating: 2.0

nah