Arkona - Гой, Роде, Гой! review



Reviewer:
8.6

254 users:
8.51
Band: Arkona
Album: Гой, Роде, Гой!
Release date: October 2009


01. Гой, Роде, Гой!
02. Тропою Неведанной
03. Невидаль
04. На Моей Земле
05. Притча
06. В Цепях Древней Тайны
07. Ярило
08. Лики Бессмертных Богов
09. Коло Нави
10. Корочун
11. Память
12. Купалец
13. Аркона
14. Небо Хмурое, Тучи Мрачные


Admittedly, I have been quite critical in the past of this genre called "folk metal". It was novel and fun at first, but after a while - like any other genre - it became watered down with a lot of worthless crap. It's a lot easier for me to put down crappy folk metal than any other genre. I'm a man who appreciates solid riffing above anything else, and when any potential riffing is completely drowned out in accordions or synthesizers (not mentioning a particular Finnish band that begins with a "K"), I get angry. No one likes a rabid reviewer when they're angry. However, every once in a while a band or album will come along to raise the bar for metal as a whole; using the folk sound to enhance the music rather than cover up any lack of song writing abilities with gimmicky child's play. With Goi, Rode, Goi!, Arkona have undoubtedly secured their place next to the more respectable folk acts out there these days such as Moonsorrow and Eluveitie.

So why do Arkona deserve respect above other folk "metal" acts? It's simple - they keep the "metal" in folk metal. Between the staple chants & interludes of various instruments (done tastefully may I add), there is plenty of aggressive riffing, blast-beats, and pissed-off guttural vocals. The impressive part about this album is how well it flows together, end to end, with next to no repetition. The whole thing almost works like a story in itself; you're not going to see the same scene twice.

Like the common problem within folk metal, Arkona appear to be a little too over-indulgent. Unlike most folk metal, the over-indulgent tendencies aren't the instruments themselves, but rather the sheer length of this piece. As I said, it's a seamless, flowing, varied work of art, each section being essential to the overall picture - not so bad, right? Well, in most cases, no, but Goi, Rode, Goi! Is about twice as long as your average album. Sitting through 80 minutes of anything is difficult, but especially so when it's an album that isn't easily broken into more digestible pieces. It could just be my A.D.D. talking, but it's hard not to get distracted after a while, which results in overlooking potential highlights. Long story short Goi, Rode, Goi! could have benefited from being broken down into 2 discs. Unless you're particularly enthusiastic about the genre, an entire play through will leave you with no energy to do anything but sit in your swivel chair and drool on yourself.

Altogether this is what the pinnacle of folk metal could sound like, but needs a little bit of consolidation to offer a more direct punch to be heralded as any kind of instant classic. Oh well, maybe next time.


Rating breakdown
Performance: 10
Songwriting: 8
Originality: 8
Production: 9


 



Written on 02.12.2009 by Former EIC. Now just a reviewer guy.


Comments page 2 / 2

Comments: 41   Visited by: 405 users
03.12.2010 - 03:40
Bovinus
Written by Doc Godin on 02.12.2010 at 19:27

Written by Mr. Doctor on 02.12.2010 at 19:20

Written by Bovinus on 02.12.2010 at 12:43

By the way, Doc Godin, may I ask how did you get that 8 for the songwriting part of the review ? Do you speak russian ? I studied it, and I still don't get the half of the text, even with the lyrics right under my nose. This is not even russian, this is ancient russian. I also got the english version of the booklet, which contains basically nothing. Not trying to be agressive here, just wondering.


The songwriting doesn't have anything to do with the lyrics... at all. It's just about how the SONGS are build. The composition, etc...

My 2 cents here: Yes... You can judge an album by it's lenght, some bands don't have the skills to back it up and make you focus on the music.

Guy just wants to bitch because he's butthurt I didn't give a favourite album of his 10/10.

Nah, you don't get it. I just like to understand things. As someone already pointed it out, comments about the length seem irrelevant to SOME people (me included). There are people who think the contrary, well, I guess there is nothing wrong with it, but we can still talk, right ?

About the songwriting, thanks for enlightening me. If the lyrics do not count in it, I guess 8 is even too generous. 6.5-7 would have been more appropriate imo.

Now, about my opinion on Goi Rode Goi, since Sir Godin seems concerned... well, I would say this album deserves a bit less than 8, so, it looks like you appreciated it a tad more than I did In case you would wonder why I gave it a 9, well... I've browsed through random accounts, and many people only seem to have like 3 ratings : 10, 9, sometimes 8. On the other hand, I'm totally newb on this site, so I'm still toying with the features, the rating system, the collections, the lists, and all this stuff. It's very possible that I don't fully understand the rating system and how it should work. I mean, there is a lot of stuff out there that seems heavily overrated, isn't it ? Many albums considered like "classics" only have an average rating around 9.2 or something like (good example : Rust in Peace), which means that this new Arkona record should be in fact rated at 6 or 7. Honestly, do we have a legendary album here ? No way. On the other hand, if Goi Rode Goi had a rating of 6, people would think it's shit, when it is not for sure.

Being objective is not easy at all
Loading...
03.12.2010 - 04:18
Doc Godin
Obnoxious
Written by Bovinus on 03.12.2010 at 03:40

Nah, you don't get it. I just like to understand things. As someone already pointed it out, comments about the length seem irrelevant to SOME people (me included). There are people who think the contrary, well, I guess there is nothing wrong with it, but we can still talk, right ?

About the songwriting, thanks for enlightening me. If the lyrics do not count in it, I guess 8 is even too generous. 6.5-7 would have been more appropriate imo.

Now, about my opinion on Goi Rode Goi, since Sir Godin seems concerned... well, I would say this album deserves a bit less than 8, so, it looks like you appreciated it a tad more than I did In case you would wonder why I gave it a 9, well... I've browsed through random accounts, and many people only seem to have like 3 ratings : 10, 9, sometimes 8. On the other hand, I'm totally newb on this site, so I'm still toying with the features, the rating system, the collections, the lists, and all this stuff. It's very possible that I don't fully understand the rating system and how it should work. I mean, there is a lot of stuff out there that seems heavily overrated, isn't it ? Many albums considered like "classics" only have an average rating around 9.2 or something like (good example : Rust in Peace), which means that this new Arkona record should be in fact rated at 6 or 7. Honestly, do we have a legendary album here ? No way. On the other hand, if Goi Rode Goi had a rating of 6, people would think it's shit, when it is not for sure.

Being objective is not easy at all

As you said before, it is my opinion. All opinions are irrelevant to the people who don't agree with those opinions.

As for how to gauge things when it comes to the voting system you'll notice (if you've been paying attention) when you're voting next to the number there's a word or two, exactly like so:
10 - Perfect
9 - Excellent
8 - Very Good
7 - Good
6 - Average
5 - Not Good
4 - Bad
3 - Very Bad
2 - Pure Shit
1 - Worst Ever

Your vote should reflect that, it's a pretty fool proof system that's kinda hard to screw up (which people somehow manage anyways). However, by the way you stated things, it seems your voting is entirely relative to other peoples votes, which renders any fool-proofing pretty much useless.
----
"I got a lot of really good ideas, problem is, most of them suck."
- George Carlin
Loading...
03.12.2010 - 21:21
Bovinus
Written by Doc Godin on 03.12.2010 at 04:18

Written by Bovinus on 03.12.2010 at 03:40

Nah, you don't get it. I just like to understand things. As someone already pointed it out, comments about the length seem irrelevant to SOME people (me included). There are people who think the contrary, well, I guess there is nothing wrong with it, but we can still talk, right ?

About the songwriting, thanks for enlightening me. If the lyrics do not count in it, I guess 8 is even too generous. 6.5-7 would have been more appropriate imo.

Now, about my opinion on Goi Rode Goi, since Sir Godin seems concerned... well, I would say this album deserves a bit less than 8, so, it looks like you appreciated it a tad more than I did In case you would wonder why I gave it a 9, well... I've browsed through random accounts, and many people only seem to have like 3 ratings : 10, 9, sometimes 8. On the other hand, I'm totally newb on this site, so I'm still toying with the features, the rating system, the collections, the lists, and all this stuff. It's very possible that I don't fully understand the rating system and how it should work. I mean, there is a lot of stuff out there that seems heavily overrated, isn't it ? Many albums considered like "classics" only have an average rating around 9.2 or something like (good example : Rust in Peace), which means that this new Arkona record should be in fact rated at 6 or 7. Honestly, do we have a legendary album here ? No way. On the other hand, if Goi Rode Goi had a rating of 6, people would think it's shit, when it is not for sure.

Being objective is not easy at all

As you said before, it is my opinion. All opinions are irrelevant to the people who don't agree with those opinions.

As for how to gauge things when it comes to the voting system you'll notice (if you've been paying attention) when you're voting next to the number there's a word or two, exactly like so:
10 - Perfect
9 - Excellent
8 - Very Good
7 - Good
6 - Average
5 - Not Good
4 - Bad
3 - Very Bad
2 - Pure Shit
1 - Worst Ever

Your vote should reflect that, it's a pretty fool proof system that's kinda hard to screw up (which people somehow manage anyways). However, by the way you stated things, it seems your voting is entirely relative to other peoples votes, which renders any fool-proofing pretty much useless.


Yea, I did notice what is corresponding to each number. However, allow me to develop this a bit further : it's not only about the "absolute value" of an 8 or a 7, but also about who it is supposed to be addressed to. I mean, are we voting for selves ? Certainly not, since we should know what we do prefer in our collection without the help of any ratings. The act of voting is a message to people who will see this rating and perhaps decide on its basis if an album is worthy or not, and if it is, to what degree in comparison to an another album. In other words, most people probably use the rating system as a tool to inform the community about what they do like or do not, instead of using it as an impartial evaluation tool. This explains why one can be tempted to add or remove a point or two, "relatively to other peoples votes" (exactly as you stated it). Which explains why an album that deserves an 8, for example, finally gets a 9 (or a 7). Nothing really bad so far, however, there are plenty of "very good" albums out there (in fact, I suppose that most of albums produced nowadays are at least good). Sorting them more precisely becomes even harder. Which ones will you still listen to 10 years later ? Which ones will be forgotten ?

I guess the first one to rate an album is also the only one to do it without being influenced by the opinion of someone else, since he does it "blindly". When the album is already rated, you have no choice but to rate it relatively to the existent rating (or to not rate it at all). Basically, your rating says that :
- you do agree with the opinion of previous people (you rate it as close to the actual rating as possible)
- you do disagree ; from there, the question is only to state how much.

In both cases, you're not "objective" anymore (objective relatively to your own personal criteria, which is an another long story). In both cases, the purpose of rating gets somewhat screwed, since you only have the choice between doing like everyone else. or to contest the main opinion. The only way to make it so that one would always vote "blindly" would be to hide the ratings for good ; however, we would lose the possibility to know how people rate the albums that we do not know.

Well, this is how I do see the picture. Am I wrong somewhere ?
Loading...
13.06.2012 - 13:01
bozgy
Written by Mr. Doctor on 02.12.2010 at 19:20

Written by Bovinus on 02.12.2010 at 12:43

By the way, Doc Godin, may I ask how did you get that 8 for the songwriting part of the review ? Do you speak russian ? I studied it, and I still don't get the half of the text, even with the lyrics right under my nose. This is not even russian, this is ancient russian. I also got the english version of the booklet, which contains basically nothing. Not trying to be agressive here, just wondering.


The songwriting doesn't have anything to do with the lyrics... at all. It's just about how the SONGS are build. The composition, etc...

My 2 cents here: Yes... You can judge an album by it's lenght, some bands don't have the skills to back it up and make you focus on the music.


Really? The songwriting doesn't have anything to do with the lyrics... at all?
OoooK... If you say so....
Loading...
13.06.2012 - 13:04
Mr. Doctor
Skandino
Written by bozgy on 13.06.2012 at 13:01

Really? The songwriting doesn't have anything to do with the lyrics... at all?
OoooK... If you say so....


If you feel that you can judge the music based on LYRICS then it's your choice but I don't find it correct, specially if by chance you happen to not understand a single word of what the singer is saying then the vocals just work as another instrument (and that's in fact what vocals are... another instrument), making the content of the lyrics quite trivial.

I wouldn't take out points in the rating of an album with fantastic music just because I don't like the lyrics. I find it stupid... Specially if we are talking about instrumental, growling/singing made-up words or a language you don't understand... It makes the whole "judging the lyrics" thing completely pointless.
----
Written by BloodTears on 19.08.2011 at 18:29
Like you could kiss my ass
Written by Milena on 20.06.2012 at 10:49
Rod, let me love you.
Loading...
13.06.2012 - 16:08
bozgy
Quote:


If you feel that you can judge the music based on LYRICS then it's your choice but I don't find it correct, specially if by chance you happen to not understand a single word of what the singer is saying then the vocals just work as another instrument (and that's in fact what vocals are... another instrument), making the content of the lyrics quite trivial.
-----------

I see your point, still I cannot believe we're debating if lyrics should be considered when reviewing an album
If the reviewer doesn't understand them then the review is not complete. We appreciate the effort and read it as it is....
However, if somebody who understand the language can add some perspective on the lyrics, I think this should be saluted since it makes the review more complete.

All the best
Loading...
13.06.2012 - 17:26
Mr. Doctor
Skandino
Written by bozgy on 13.06.2012 at 16:08

If the reviewer doesn't understand them then the review is not complete. We appreciate the effort and read it as it is....


I have to disagree with the "If the reviewer doesn't understand them then the review is not complete". This feels harsh and unreasonable on the reviewers specially when some lyrics are (let's face it) not particularly interesting. Not every album deserves a dissection of their lyrics. If they are very good, they can be named, if they are very bad... they can be named as well.... If they are neutral in quality, no good or bad... Then it's up to the reviewer I guess. But to say that the reviewer didn't finish his work is just wrong as there's not a guide of how to write a "good review". You can't mention every single thing in a review. There are so many reviews out there which discuss the album perfectly but don't give much talk (if any) to the lyrics. Look around many other official reviews out there in other websites, the amount of them that take the time to discuss the lyrics is a minority and it's understandable because not every album deserves an explanation of that... are they lesser reviews because of that? Hell no. Not even the professional music/movie reviewers that do it as a living need to do it.
----
Written by BloodTears on 19.08.2011 at 18:29
Like you could kiss my ass
Written by Milena on 20.06.2012 at 10:49
Rod, let me love you.
Loading...
14.06.2012 - 02:56
Troy Killjoy
perfunctionist
Of all my reviews, maybe three of them make mention of the lyrical content - and even then, it's usually done with a single sentence. This review is in no way incomplete or bad because it doesn't spend an unnecessary amount of time discussing the lyrics, because it describes the music. In metal, the music is far more important than the words.
----
Prettier than BloodTears.
Loading...
15.06.2012 - 04:34
Doc Godin
Obnoxious
Written by Troy Killjoy on 14.06.2012 at 02:56

Of all my reviews, maybe three of them make mention of the lyrical content - and even then, it's usually done with a single sentence. This review is in no way incomplete or bad because it doesn't spend an unnecessary amount of time discussing the lyrics, because it describes the music. In metal, the music is far more important than the words.

Besides, if I were to put such a large emphasis on lyrics, I'd be handing out a lot more 2's around here. One of my favourite bands is 3 Inches Of Blood for fuck sakes, I'm in no position to talk about quality of lyrics.
----
"I got a lot of really good ideas, problem is, most of them suck."
- George Carlin
Loading...
15.06.2012 - 05:49
Troy Killjoy
perfunctionist
Written by Doc Godin on 15.06.2012 at 04:34
Besides, if I were to put such a large emphasis on lyrics, I'd be handing out a lot more 2's around here. One of my favourite bands is 3 Inches Of Blood for fuck sakes, I'm in no position to talk about quality of lyrics.

A good chunk of bands I listen to don't even post their lyrics. And another good chunk sing in a language I don't even understand. I judge them as an additional instrument when it comes to metal, although with decipherable vocals (doom metal and various forms of pop and rock) I find it difficult to appreciate the music if the lyrics are disruptively bad.
----
Prettier than BloodTears.
Loading...
15.06.2012 - 06:11
Boxcar Willy
yr a kook
Written by Troy Killjoy on 15.06.2012 at 05:49

Written by Doc Godin on 15.06.2012 at 04:34
Besides, if I were to put such a large emphasis on lyrics, I'd be handing out a lot more 2's around here. One of my favourite bands is 3 Inches Of Blood for fuck sakes, I'm in no position to talk about quality of lyrics.

A good chunk of bands I listen to don't even post their lyrics. And another good chunk sing in a language I don't even understand. I judge them as an additional instrument when it comes to metal, although with decipherable vocals (doom metal and various forms of pop and rock) I find it difficult to appreciate the music if the lyrics are disruptively bad.

Precisely this, I listen to see if they mix well, and are in key, and, unless they are hideously bad I tend to overlook them. But on the other end of the spectrum some vocalists are poets. Take David Gold for example, a lot of why I like him is due to the lyrics he writes. they definately add an atmosphere I love.
----
forever bummed out
Loading...

Hits total: 8827 | This month: 38