Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not
by Arctic Monkeys
  • Record Label: Domino
  • Release Date: Feb 21, 2006
User Score
8.2

Universal acclaim- based on 907 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 763 out of 907
  2. Mixed: 64 out of 907
  3. Negative: 80 out of 907

Review this album

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. myopinion!
    Jan 31, 2006
    7
    Great songs, not much new here, but the ·$%&ers have incredible talent. Denying it can only mean youre jealous, cause theyre hugely talented and young... As far as rock goes, 2006 is lookin good already
  2. Bens
    Feb 12, 2006
    7
    Yeah their good but christ not THAT good. ' Bet you look good on the dancefloor' is magnicent as are 'sun goes down', ' a certain romance', 'mardy bum' and ' fake tails of san fransisco', they all sound like hits but some of the rest is dour, 'dancing shoes' slips by, 'viabsb...' grates ( as does the full title), and Yeah their good but christ not THAT good. ' Bet you look good on the dancefloor' is magnicent as are 'sun goes down', ' a certain romance', 'mardy bum' and ' fake tails of san fransisco', they all sound like hits but some of the rest is dour, 'dancing shoes' slips by, 'viabsb...' grates ( as does the full title), and riot van is very very average… Expand
  3. YokS
    Feb 18, 2006
    7
    Insanely energetic and catchy, but hardly life-changing. They've got some great tracks but they miss the target with their fillers more often than not which makes the album ring a bit hollow.
  4. GeorgeC
    Feb 25, 2006
    7
    There's a couple of great under 3:00 songs.....and it's fresh.....but it's not London Calling or even close to the brilliance of Let is Bleed....
  5. Shantie
    Feb 8, 2006
    7
    very enjoyable album would probably have rated it 7 1/2 if that had been possible above par songwriting, some nice (early) Sonic Youth kinda music some great tracks not worth the great hype (but, let´s face it, no album is) but very enjoyable
  6. Darren
    Mar 10, 2006
    7
    It's most certainly a good album, but it's inconsistent from song to song, and outside of 'When the Sun Goes Down', no track really blows me away. It doesn't live up to the hype it has received, but it's a decent album nevertheless.
  7. RyanL
    Mar 5, 2006
    7
    Solid album. If you're a fan of somewhat frantic rock, pick it up. You'll probably find it's not as good as the hype, but not nearly as bad as the people backlashing are making it out to be.
  8. BrianM
    Apr 11, 2006
    7
    It's amazing how this band went from underheard to SNL within a few weeks, but I still don't get it. Praise from tons of publications yet their sound isn't that original. Songs are kinda catchy I will admit. But why the hype?
  9. KevinR
    Apr 2, 2006
    7
    A formidable album, laced with very catchy, quick moving lyrics. However, they just don't live up to the overwhelming hype they received in Britain.
  10. DecepticonPom
    Apr 21, 2006
    7
    Get the beers in, grab yer mates by the scruff of the neck, have a good time with this albo and in five years time think back to great laughs but think how sad it is yer can't really sit through the whole album any more coz it reminds you of how great a crap band have become since. Or something.
  11. SAVAGETOAST
    Aug 18, 2006
    7
    Good, but not the best of the year. Id say its third best behind Destroyer's Rubies and #1 and Return to Cookie Mt. at #2. Pretty good but his voice gets annoying for us americans and they sort of get repetitive. A 7.
  12. ReubenF
    Dec 18, 2006
    7
    The British Tabloids are well-known for over-hyping bands, and the Arctic Monkeys are the latest case in point. It is impossible now to know what to make of it all, as their over-hyping at the start of 2006 has been predictably followed by an equally extreme backlash. The winds of Brit-Pop indie fashion are notoriously fickle, especially when a band that even remotely resembles The Smiths The British Tabloids are well-known for over-hyping bands, and the Arctic Monkeys are the latest case in point. It is impossible now to know what to make of it all, as their over-hyping at the start of 2006 has been predictably followed by an equally extreme backlash. The winds of Brit-Pop indie fashion are notoriously fickle, especially when a band that even remotely resembles The Smiths happens to come along. That they combine that influence with The Streets probably explains the initial enthusiasm for the band. They are young. If they are as good as initially they were claimed to be, it will probably still take a few albums to regain credibility. Which is kinda unfair, as the over-hyping was not their fault.… Expand
  13. Zimbo74
    Feb 22, 2006
    7
    Its a pretty good album not the saviour of music some people are making it out to be but good nonetheless.
  14. douglasm
    Feb 9, 2006
    7
    sublimely witty lyrics, catchy melodies. not exactly the instant classic the british media is claiming it to be, but it could be a lot worse. it is what it is: a promising debut from a promising band. the demos sounded better, but the songs are still top-notch.
  15. RachelM.
    Mar 1, 2006
    7
    It's not a question of either "they sound great!" or "don't believe the hype!". It's both. I personally think that most songs in this album seem simply perfect. But that is because they sound just like a band said to be "the next big thing" would, at least nowadays. Riffs, carefully designed spontaneity & a more than usual dose of Liam's (but modernised) coming exactly It's not a question of either "they sound great!" or "don't believe the hype!". It's both. I personally think that most songs in this album seem simply perfect. But that is because they sound just like a band said to be "the next big thing" would, at least nowadays. Riffs, carefully designed spontaneity & a more than usual dose of Liam's (but modernised) coming exactly when one would expect. Something you think it's new, but just before realising The Strokes are already invented. But that's "what the point is not. The point is" that NME necessity of finding a "classic band" (usually several candidates) each year has become laughable (by the way, who continues to think seriously about NME after saying X&Y is Coldplay's classic and Heathen Chemistry Oasis return to form?). What do they think they're doing? They're leading lots of young bands to believe they can be classic if they just fit into the likes of that year... So what is it? Do I like this album? Or not? I'm sure I'd loved it, simply loved it, if we weren't told to love it all the time. Because I've also been a fan of every "next big British thing" & it's the same old story. At the same time, this album is hot (terribly), stylish, fresh, and the lyrics are brilliant sometimes. Best thing this year? Who can doubt it? But it's all industry as well. And the idea of a "classic band"...pf. It's not that they cannot be, only time will tell. But classic bands are those who were, are and always be. And this band "is", and just until NME finds a more profitable icon. … Expand
  16. TedJ
    Mar 13, 2006
    7
    7. that's it, that's all, so stop hating them or sucking their dicks because they aren't deserving of either.
  17. NakulP
    Apr 1, 2006
    7
    A very good album. Not quite worth the NME hyperbole, but still very good. Sure beats all the other crap around at the moment, for example James Blunt, The Streets, Embrace, all rap (Kanye excepted).
  18. LoganM
    Jul 16, 2006
    7
    this album was ok, nothing higher than a seven because you cant listen to this whole album. Half the songs stink on this album and another minus to the band is that I saw them doing "I Bet You Look Good On The Dancefloor" on many different showes and they were pretty darn bad. It may have gotten good ratings from the critics but I don't get how people can enjoy and listen over and this album was ok, nothing higher than a seven because you cant listen to this whole album. Half the songs stink on this album and another minus to the band is that I saw them doing "I Bet You Look Good On The Dancefloor" on many different showes and they were pretty darn bad. It may have gotten good ratings from the critics but I don't get how people can enjoy and listen over and over to some of the tracks on this record. Oh yeah, Doesn't the guy on the cover of the cd look like Adam Sandler?????????… Expand
  19. MaxB
    Oct 19, 2006
    7
    These songs are nice, pretty little morsels of raw, blunt but poppy rock n roll. The songs are fun, especially the single "I Bet You Look Good on the Dance Floor". But that song is about as good as they get, and towards the end they start to blend together.
  20. CaleW
    Dec 27, 2006
    7
    Really solid debut. The band's great sense of rhythm and Turner's endearing accent make it a winner. Still, the energy level remains too high too long, and you'll probably grow weary trying to listen to the whole thing in one sitting. Turner's lyrics are good, though his sketches of place and character seldom develop into complete portraits. Their next album will Really solid debut. The band's great sense of rhythm and Turner's endearing accent make it a winner. Still, the energy level remains too high too long, and you'll probably grow weary trying to listen to the whole thing in one sitting. Turner's lyrics are good, though his sketches of place and character seldom develop into complete portraits. Their next album will probably be a true classic or truly miserable, but I can't imagine a band this energetic simply treading water.… Expand
  21. DavidS
    Feb 16, 2006
    7
    I'm just going to come out and say it, this release was a bit of a disappointment. I'd read the hype and was expecting something phenomenal. I was expecting caviar and instead I got salmon roe. You get the idea. When I listened to Oasis for the first time, or even Travis(Good Feeling) I was blown away. Those songs grabbed me by the jugular and didn't let go. Arctic I'm just going to come out and say it, this release was a bit of a disappointment. I'd read the hype and was expecting something phenomenal. I was expecting caviar and instead I got salmon roe. You get the idea. When I listened to Oasis for the first time, or even Travis(Good Feeling) I was blown away. Those songs grabbed me by the jugular and didn't let go. Arctic Monkey's on the other hand are a decent band. NOT A GREAT ONE! The songwriting lacks maturity, along with the lyrical content as well. Also, the vocalist is lacklustre at best. I heard these guys listen to a lot of hip-hop and it's evident in the vocalists delivery. Too much, too fast. His tone is boring, and he has absolutely no range. The first time I heard Liam Gallagher sing Live Forever it gave me goosebumps. This dude just doesn't do it for me. Most of the songs are good but there's no standout. Some are hummable but most are forgettable. I gave this a 7 because they have some potential, but realistically I think this band will be gone and forgotten in a year or two. Just a blip on the radar screen people. As for the next great rock band, I'm still waiting. P.S. NME needs to lay off the funky herb!… Expand
  22. RaulG
    Feb 23, 2006
    7
    I dig the album....The hype these guys are getting is a lil bit much...decent album from a cool band....hardly the second coming of Christ however....
  23. WerdBomb
    Feb 26, 2006
    7
    Solid and entertaining. But shades of a hollow core, it's too early to get too excited. Actually nothing really new, just a damn fine crystallization of the proclivities of past 5 years or so.
  24. joeb
    Apr 13, 2006
    7
    catchy and cheeky with lyrics a lot of us can relate to. let me down with their belligerent and their typically "rock behaviour when they kicked their award around at a ceremony as thogh it meant nothing. guys, u have to be rock and roll before you act it. dont show yourself up!!
  25. BenB
    Sep 18, 2006
    7
    This is an honest try at something new that has a couple amazing songs (Mardy Bum, When The Sun Goes Down, that Dancefloor track)...it just becomes a little repetitive, more annoying, then just sucks. They aren't Oasis (better in fact)and have a completely different view than the Gallaghers (Oasis=depressed girls in Omaha, Arctic Monkeys=Liverpool club hoppers)
  26. rjmacready
    Nov 28, 2020
    7
    Eh.

    I'm not quite sure what all the fuss was about, but I've listened to this album about once a year for the past however many years that I've owned it and...yeah, it's alright. Decent, even. Though I honestly prefer The Wombats, who sound awfully similar, so...no, I'm not really sure why this album stood out so spectacularly to others, in a world frankly brimming with a lot of    Eh.

    I'm not quite sure what all the fuss was about, but I've listened to this album about once a year for the past however many years that I've owned it and...yeah, it's alright. Decent, even. Though I honestly prefer The Wombats, who sound awfully similar, so...no, I'm not really sure why this album stood out so spectacularly to others, in a world frankly brimming with a lot of similar-sounding bands.

    Oh, and people who don't like unapologetically British accents really need not apply.    … Expand
  27. MikeK
    Feb 23, 2006
    6
    Decent. But WAY overpraised. The album has a lot of sameness to it that gets very repetitive after a listen or two. Not bad, just not the second coming. I predict a critical backlash in about, oh, 4 months.
  28. RalphP
    Feb 3, 2006
    6
    They are not bad, but they are not very good too. They are just like 10000 other bands, i.e. average. Certainly, being the most-hyped band ever is not going to help them. The Strokes had enough talent to live up to the hype surrounding them. This is not the case with Arctic Monkeys. I doubt anybody will be talking about them in 2 years.
  29. AdrianK
    Jan 29, 2006
    6
    Above average. The hype may have had something to do with it, but this album certainly does NOT deserve the #5 spot on NME's GREATEST BRITISH ALBUMS OF ALL-TIME. You mean to tell me that this is musically/llyrically superior to Radiohead's OK Computer?? I'm sorry to all you British folks but this is far from "ground-breaking."
  30. MusicMaven
    Feb 7, 2006
    6
    The hype machine is in full effect. The album is not bad, but it's way overrated. It sounds a bit like the Libertines meet the Rakes. You want to hear the best of Britain? Check out Hard-Fi. Stars of CCTV is a great album that Metacritic completely missed. Maybe they'll finally list it since it's getting a U.S. release. Only 9 months late!
  31. NickW
    Feb 11, 2006
    6
    Well..its not as awful as I expected considering this album has been scene raped beyond comprehension. I just couldn't get past the oldness of everything- it all sounds like a combination of every thing that's been big on the british scene in the last 10 years..plus, some songs just grate me.
  32. jh
    Feb 19, 2006
    6
    I give it a 6.5 actually. Its definitly pretty good, but its no Up The Bracket.
  33. StevePar
    Feb 22, 2006
    6
    Thinking it was all hype, I listened to this album only to prove that it sucks, so I can tell people who rave about it to shut up. Turns out it wasnt all that bad. Some of the songs are a bit repetitive, but there are some decent songs in here. I would give it more points if they had stronger vocals. 6.5.
  34. jdg
    Mar 31, 2006
    6
    Just average. I think all the hype spoiled it. At least for me.
  35. Simon
    Mar 30, 2006
    6
    Rule Number 1. No band is worth it's hype. These guys are the latest band to fucked up the arse by the NME. Sure, Alex Turner isn't too bad as a lyricist, but the band's music is a recycled version of the Libertines minus the controversy and drugs. Don't know where all the Oasis and Blur comparisions come from. There's plenty of better music out there that'll Rule Number 1. No band is worth it's hype. These guys are the latest band to fucked up the arse by the NME. Sure, Alex Turner isn't too bad as a lyricist, but the band's music is a recycled version of the Libertines minus the controversy and drugs. Don't know where all the Oasis and Blur comparisions come from. There's plenty of better music out there that'll beat this album to my stereo.… Expand
  36. BMikols
    May 11, 2006
    6
    Gotta say, I've given the album several listens since early Jan, and I find it to be enjoyable, but overall rather simplistic and totally conscious of itself. If the NY Times really believed a better album would not come out this year, they certainly underestimate The Strokes and The Yeah Yeah Yeahs. It will be interesting to see how The Monkeys evolve for their second offering
  37. JozefD
    Feb 10, 2006
    5
    To be honest, I've only heard this album all the way through a couple of times, but it sounds no different to any other NME-hyped flavour of the month thang (see also the Libertines, Franz Ferdinand). Pretty mediocre then, but with haircuts...
  38. JimD.
    Mar 2, 2006
    5
    I heard a lot about this band, and thanks to the overwhelmingly positive reviews, I bought the album without ever hearing the band. In retrospect, it would be worth downloading (i.e. stealing) but I wouldn't pay for it again. What drives me nuts is when people review a debut album and give it a 9 or 10, and its NOT EVEN REMOTELY ORIGINAL!!! Its not a terrible album, but what's I heard a lot about this band, and thanks to the overwhelmingly positive reviews, I bought the album without ever hearing the band. In retrospect, it would be worth downloading (i.e. stealing) but I wouldn't pay for it again. What drives me nuts is when people review a debut album and give it a 9 or 10, and its NOT EVEN REMOTELY ORIGINAL!!! Its not a terrible album, but what's to love? The musicianship is what you'd expect from a teenage garage band, the vocals border on grating. It does have a certain honesty and rawness, but if you like this type of music, listen to the White Stripes.… Expand
  39. marks
    Apr 20, 2006
    5
    i'll admit it ; i usually go for the hyped indie bands, especially the english ones. but this one has little going for it ,least of all originality or consistency. it sounds terribly like iit was written by 19 year olds, which is fine. just dont call this something its not.
  40. NickR
    May 10, 2006
    5
    Really boring, derivative Brit-pop. Blur perfected this about 11 years ago wtih "Parklife"- even though the British press will turn blue in the face telling you how great these guys are, they really aren't. In all fairness, however, "I Think You'd Look Good on the Dancefllor" is a very solid track. Besides that, just listen to non-singles Oasis, and you've pretty much got it.
  41. TomB
    Jan 30, 2006
    5
    I challenge anyone to follow your heart musically for a year, really listen to what's out there ... take some chances, take some recommendations, etc - and then come back to this one. It just doesn't add up. This is a very average album pumped up by a relentless British music press. There are less ideas in this album than the first Strokes album, and anyone with half an ear knew I challenge anyone to follow your heart musically for a year, really listen to what's out there ... take some chances, take some recommendations, etc - and then come back to this one. It just doesn't add up. This is a very average album pumped up by a relentless British music press. There are less ideas in this album than the first Strokes album, and anyone with half an ear knew they'd be utterly out of ideas by album #3.… Expand
  42. MichaelK
    Feb 15, 2006
    5
    'Dancefloor' apart, this is mediocre and forgettable. Completely overhyped.
  43. ChrisD
    Apr 5, 2006
    5
    Standard 21st century brit-pop.
  44. Jack.
    May 8, 2006
    5
    Not bad, but not good either. Arctic Monkeys are just amazingly average. It's hard to dislike them - but harder to like them. A band that, were it not for their internet success story, would probably have achieved only limited, mostly local, success.
  45. raulj
    Jan 29, 2006
    5
    really pathetic writing skills here and music that is far from interesting. don't believe the hype, boi!
  46. jamesl
    Feb 6, 2006
    5
    The praise being given this effort is astounding. If it were half as good as the tastemakers say it would be ok. A major disappointment.
  47. KateD
    Mar 21, 2006
    5
    It's OK, but nowhere near as good as the hype would have us believe. When the Sun Goes Down is brilliant and inventive, but everything else is just a bit predictable and dull. The supposedly incisive lyrics are well-observed, sure, but hardly mind-blowing. A number of other bands, not least Pulp (also from Sheffield) have nailed modern Britain much better. Read the Pitchfork review It's OK, but nowhere near as good as the hype would have us believe. When the Sun Goes Down is brilliant and inventive, but everything else is just a bit predictable and dull. The supposedly incisive lyrics are well-observed, sure, but hardly mind-blowing. A number of other bands, not least Pulp (also from Sheffield) have nailed modern Britain much better. Read the Pitchfork review for the best analysis I have seen of the successes and failures of this record.… Expand
  48. ChristopherM
    Sep 7, 2006
    5
    I'd give it more but this sure seems like it's been done a few times before.....and the name really bites...sheesh..arctic monkeys..??????
  49. RhysE
    Apr 12, 2007
    5
    Obviously, this album his horribley over hyped, which, will give the Monkey's a disadvantage as people will buy the album, expecting an album of Revolver or OK Computer quality. Whilst they aren't particularly bad, they aren't great. After the first couple of songs, it will just seem like the whole album is one long song. There is no change in tone on the guitars, no real Obviously, this album his horribley over hyped, which, will give the Monkey's a disadvantage as people will buy the album, expecting an album of Revolver or OK Computer quality. Whilst they aren't particularly bad, they aren't great. After the first couple of songs, it will just seem like the whole album is one long song. There is no change in tone on the guitars, no real change in pace (except for Riot Van, which is quite slow) and no change in the style of music. All just barre chords being played in a regular 4/4 time signature. Nothing that hasn't been heard before, by the other mainstream bands such as Razorlight, The View, The Fratellis, The Kooks etc. What you get, is a repetetive, unremarkable and moderately bland (although not quite as bland as Razorlight) album, that, if it had not sold so many copies, would be forgotten in the coming years. Unfortunatley, NME is still around, so alot of this stuff will probably be around for a while. Saviours of rock, I hope not.… Expand
  50. GarrisonF
    Jan 27, 2006
    5
    Almost as overrated as the new Franz Ferdinand. They got alot potential. Personally I feel artists like The New Lows, Bark Bark Bark, and Harley Goldstein deserve the spotlight. No one deserves hype for one quality single. Music should sell itself. Download "Dancefloor" and check out those other artists and you be the judge.
  51. EastVillage
    Feb 11, 2006
    5
    Meh ...it's O.K. Well executed but one has the feeling that they've already heard this album done by at least a dozen other bands. The NME hype proves that the Brits are as gullible we Americans ...CHEERS!!
  52. Tbone
    Feb 14, 2006
    5
    Yeah it' overhyped. I'm glad I only bought a couple songs. Whatever other reviewer compared them to a British Fall Out Boy is dead on.
  53. AlekM
    Mar 14, 2006
    5
    Catchy but uninspired and very shallow lyrics. Didn't get all of the hype over here in the US. An impulse buy for sure, but of those probably one of the best I've heard.
  54. bernardoc
    Sep 26, 2006
    5
    is not so awful and not so awesome...just common whit a few sparks...that is easily forgotten
  55. MarkD
    Feb 18, 2007
    5
    If you ever needed proof that the British music press are a bunch of sheep who know nothing about music then just look at the bandwagon jumping hype that this album got. Ther's nothing exceptional or even slightly original about this music, just a few simple yet catchy pop/punk songs with smug "how clever are we" (despite the awful grammer) lyrics. In fact it's borderline middle If you ever needed proof that the British music press are a bunch of sheep who know nothing about music then just look at the bandwagon jumping hype that this album got. Ther's nothing exceptional or even slightly original about this music, just a few simple yet catchy pop/punk songs with smug "how clever are we" (despite the awful grammer) lyrics. In fact it's borderline middle of the road. The bottom line is this - i've heard it all before and i've heard it done a thousand times better. I hate the critics, i hate the Artics self satified attitude and (mark my words) in 10 years time everyone will wonder what all the fuss was about. DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE!!!… Expand
  56. ScottI
    Apr 4, 2006
    4
    Mediocre and nothing more. An immature and bombastic slop. Disregard the hype. Whatever people say about them, they're not worthy. Look into bands that matter (Radiohead, The Flaming Lips, Sigur Ros) and wait for these Monkeys to grow up.
  57. RichardW
    Feb 20, 2006
    4
    Considering that I do like Franz Ferdinand's sound, and even enjoy a bit of Oasis now and then, I was sure I would like this one...but, eh... It's only so, so. A few catchy tunes here and there, but the lyrics are flat and forgettable, and it really starts to grate on your ears after a while...
  58. AlecG
    Feb 27, 2006
    4
    It gets a 4 because it's.. listenable. People who I've heard say "they're the next Beatles" don't seem to understand what made the Beatles so good.
  59. Gah
    Feb 28, 2006
    4
    Now, I wont Lie, I've been a fan of every other 'next big british thing' in the history of 'big british things' and this time, there is something missing. It's hollow shallow and David H 60GB Ipod What the fuck?
  60. SeamusM
    Feb 7, 2006
    4
    Like Franz Ferdinand with more energy and weaker hooks.
  61. That'swhatthepointisnot
    Jan 31, 2006
    4
    Tedious pub-punk with awkwardly-worded football chants over the top. Grrrr.
  62. Matt
    Feb 21, 2006
    4
    Their jams are repetitive, and the lead singer can't muster much energy.
  63. JoshP
    Feb 7, 2006
    4
    Is it just me or has the "best of Britain" as of lately just sucked beyond belief. They always compare every band as the best post Libertines band. So if the Libertines = crap, where does that put the Arctic Monkeys? Actually better in my mind, but in no way similar to the the second coming of Christ. I dug When The Sun Goes Down and it raw approach to lyrics. Honestly though they are a Is it just me or has the "best of Britain" as of lately just sucked beyond belief. They always compare every band as the best post Libertines band. So if the Libertines = crap, where does that put the Arctic Monkeys? Actually better in my mind, but in no way similar to the the second coming of Christ. I dug When The Sun Goes Down and it raw approach to lyrics. Honestly though they are a flavor of the moment and may be a dull as American equivalents such as Fall Out Boy and Yellowcard. Rating: Buy at your own risks.… Expand
  64. Monkeyseemonkeydoo
    Jan 28, 2006
    4
    i read Q magazine and there was this voting is done by their readers to pick their most favourite album of all times..and the readers dare to put this album in the top 10 list..don't tell me this one is better than the jesus & mary chain's Psychocandy or how about The Cure's Pornography...don't believe the hype, warns Chuck D !
  65. JakeM.
    Feb 22, 2006
    4
    Just heard the absolutely brilliant Sugababes cover of "I Bet You Look Good on the Dancefloor" - I think if THEY rerecorded the entirety of the Arctic Monkeys' debut I'd be inclined to give the album a 9 or 10, but as it stands it is just hopelessly mediocre.
  66. RobertR
    Feb 24, 2006
    4
    I remember putting on the CD and I remember taking it off, but I don't remember anything in-between. Pleasurable but utterly forgettable.
  67. Constant
    Feb 24, 2006
    3
    Come on people, don't fall in for the hype, ask yourself would you really buy this album without having read about it? This is only very immature rock, with really weak lyrics delivered with a Midlands accent (though this can sound exotic & charming to American ears, go figure). It does certainly please 20-year old girls with half a musical culture. I can't blame them for that, Come on people, don't fall in for the hype, ask yourself would you really buy this album without having read about it? This is only very immature rock, with really weak lyrics delivered with a Midlands accent (though this can sound exotic & charming to American ears, go figure). It does certainly please 20-year old girls with half a musical culture. I can't blame them for that, only there's so much better around... get over yourself.… Expand
  68. KristenB
    Apr 10, 2006
    3
    Trite drivel that lacks substance. It's a thoroughly immature effort. The lyrics are empty and the music sounds recycled. Don't believe the hype. If you want better indie music, I recommend the following bands: Wolf Parade, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, Metric, Shout Out Louds or Grandaddy.
  69. BenJ
    Jan 27, 2006
    3
    I thought the Libertines disbanded?
  70. danielb
    Feb 22, 2006
    3
    A confused debut. An even more confusing reception. I think The UK is playing a joke on us.
  71. ErwinK
    Feb 2, 2006
    3
    yawn. hype hype hype. zero originality
  72. prostitute_finger
    May 26, 2008
    3
    Too primitive and boring commercial shit. Only few interesting and fun moments exist.
  73. MarkN
    Mar 1, 2006
    3
    I compleatly agree with Allan G. The album is only hype, and the only reason people like them is because people seem to think that this band is underground, and people try to like them in a "daring attempt to be different."
  74. CatM
    Apr 15, 2006
    3
    I found the album dull, monotonous, and lacking in musical creativity. Loads more room for expansion though.
  75. Coniseuer
    Apr 20, 2006
    3
    Don't bother with this. Reviewers are way off with their scores.
  76. Ali/m
    Apr 5, 2006
    3
    Nothing annoys me more than this "ooh we got discovered on the internet so we're indie" crap. Along with the Kaiser Chiefs this is just another post-Oasis re-hashing of the same old guitar rock we've been listening to in the UK for the last 5 years. Dull and derivative, nothing on the likes of the Futureheads, Franz Ferdinand etc.
  77. antoniop
    Jun 23, 2006
    3
    I really don't understand why the music media talk so much about these guys. Their sound is so previsible and boring.
  78. AndyS
    Dec 18, 2006
    3
    Extremely overrated.
  79. johnnybgoode
    Jan 26, 2006
    3
    this CD is boring and just rips off oasis.
  80. JudStacer
    Feb 23, 2006
    3
    The only SArctic Monkeys do well is imitate all Brit rock groups before them. I'm actually quite depressed I bought the record -- it's so boring. A group of 20-year-olds got lucky with an internet phenomenon.
  81. RH
    Mar 17, 2006
    3
    Boring, overhyped rubbish. Better than most of the mainstream pack, however.
  82. laxNSnaxK
    May 31, 2006
    3
    Well, this album is not as good as anything put out by the White Stripes, or Franz Ferdinand, or Super Furry Animals, or Flaming Lips, or Kaiser Chiefs. While it may be about as good as the highly overated The Strokes, that's nothing to be overly proud of. All the songs sound the same and the singing is terrible, in fact it's hard to find anything good about the album, but I Well, this album is not as good as anything put out by the White Stripes, or Franz Ferdinand, or Super Furry Animals, or Flaming Lips, or Kaiser Chiefs. While it may be about as good as the highly overated The Strokes, that's nothing to be overly proud of. All the songs sound the same and the singing is terrible, in fact it's hard to find anything good about the album, but I have to admit I have heard much worse, so I'll give it a 3.… Expand
  83. oliveri
    Mar 1, 2006
    2
    the stupidly immature album title only rings true if they're referring to people lavishing them with praise.
  84. MikeM
    Jan 28, 2006
    2
    this is complete hype. bands such as Art Brut and Franz Ferdinand still sound even more original. the industry must be severely lacking for this so-called band to get the exposure they're recieving.
  85. simonc
    Jan 31, 2006
    2
    I thought Britrock was dead in 1997
  86. TheGarfie
    Jan 30, 2006
    2
    A vacuous pointless exercise in hype so succesful in its execution that I suspect its a government conspiracy. How many more albums must we have based on the chavy antics of middle class boys pretending their fathers are miners? All the wit of an episode of '2 Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps', the musical excitement of a block of lard and the fact that they look frankly A vacuous pointless exercise in hype so succesful in its execution that I suspect its a government conspiracy. How many more albums must we have based on the chavy antics of middle class boys pretending their fathers are miners? All the wit of an episode of '2 Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps', the musical excitement of a block of lard and the fact that they look frankly RUBBISH make for a band whos success will go down as one of the great mysteries of the 21st century. Pathetic.… Expand
  87. mickismcna
    Feb 16, 2006
    2
    this album has a couple of decent songs but everyone now loves to run around talking about the arctic monkeys as if it was them who discovered them first and that they are a member of a rare cult following. their lyrics are pretty fucking dodgy when you look below the surface and they are incomparable with the libertines. they havent a fucking chance of a half decent secound album.
  88. JohnnyW
    Feb 2, 2006
    2
    The most hyped band ever. The music? Tedious Brit-rock crapola. Utterly average in all respects. This year's Franz Ferdinand.
  89. AaronS
    Jan 27, 2006
    2
    All hype and nothing else. Yet more proof the British indie scene is stagnant. I rank it lower than I should only because of the massive hype surrounding it.
  90. jason
    Feb 21, 2006
    2
    I'm glad to know that 15yrs later, the UK finally got its own version of Sublime. With bands as generic & boring as the Strokes, why laud cut-rate imitators? This is just another crappy garage band feeding off the hype of the continually tone-deaf UK criitcs.
  91. AdamL.
    Feb 25, 2006
    2
    NME's heralding this as one of the best albums you'll ever hear. Rolling Stone's calling them the new Oasis. Play "Definitely Maybe" next to this and join my hysterical laughter.
  92. amuror
    Sep 27, 2006
    2
    Don't believe the evaluation of the mass communication. No CD that the rock lover should hear.
  93. VikS
    Feb 11, 2006
    2
    Ouch. You Europeans have some weird taste in music if you're claiming the the Arctic Monkeys are the "it" sound of 2006... Remember folks, these are the same people that brought us the Spice Girls.
  94. FrasierCrane
    Mar 31, 2006
    2
    Music is an objective thing. One sound that I love may be the worst sound for another. Having said that, I warn you that I almost knew that I would not like this album. I am definately a member of Generation Y; I show a great interest in music that predates myself. In fact I hold the opinion that most music post 1990 is not good. Saying all that obviously stipulates that I am not going to Music is an objective thing. One sound that I love may be the worst sound for another. Having said that, I warn you that I almost knew that I would not like this album. I am definately a member of Generation Y; I show a great interest in music that predates myself. In fact I hold the opinion that most music post 1990 is not good. Saying all that obviously stipulates that I am not going to be the most objective reviewer of this album. Scrap that, I am going to be one of the least. I feel that this album represents all that is wrong with modern music and the scene in general. The bands that exist today do not have the same originality that the best of the old classics did. The difference between each Arctic Monkey song is minimal compared to the difference between, for example, Time and Money on the Dark Side of the Moon. And this is the main problem; the album "Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not" does not have enough difference between songs. There are differences, I do not deny that, but the variety is rather lacklustre to say the least. This is not just the Arctic Monkeys; the entire "Indie" scene, (I use the term to describe alternative rock), is rather too samey, too overtly similar to be as recognisably great as the Hard Rock/ Heavy Metal scene of the 1980s, or the Grunge scene of the 1990s. The album had too many songs which, while being enjoyable enough, were too samey, and therefore the album could never be, in my opinion, one that will be remembered in ten years time. This is another problem; the hype of the album was obviously too much to live up to. Were Led Zeppelin hyped before they released an album? Not really. Did they suffer because of it? 300 million albums says no. What the music scene needs now is something that gets released unknown but turns into a best seller, because it's good, not because of the hype. I believe that while hype doesn't make music sound better or worse, it can be counter productive; people will be disappointed with the product when they discover it is not original or different. "Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not" is a classic example of what is wrong with the modern music scene; mediocrity is rewarded, talent is supressed. Where's the next Led Zeppelin or the Who, where are the next innovators? I cannot see any anywhere. I just see a sea of the same old, recycled music, first spouted by Oasis and Travis, and nothing else.… Expand
  95. Louise
    Apr 18, 2006
    2
    I really wanted to like this. I am worried about the kids and where they are taking music This is terrible. I listen to bands like the Clash, Bad Brains and even stuff like Guided by Voices and worry when this is the best of today's music cos all those bands just peel this
  96. DustinPrude.
    Apr 26, 2006
    2
    Its a bad experimental Strokes album.
  97. Pukki-PukkiWoosabi
    Mar 23, 2007
    2
    I have to wonder about the type of people who rate this so highly. You are fully entitled to your (incorrect) opinion, but this is a terrible album. From start to finish it is devoid of beauty.
  98. MartinM
    Jan 30, 2006
    1
    This album is about as original as a Joan Rivers joke
  99. davidm.
    Mar 3, 2006
    1
    maybe we should take the album title to heart, right? all these reviews are praising how wonderful the record is. but, you know what they say... whatever they say you are, that's what you're not. BOOYAH
  100. johnseth
    Apr 4, 2006
    1
    CRAP!!!
Page:

Awards & Rankings

34
#34 Best Album of 2006
2
#2 Most Discussed Album of 2006
12
#12 Most Shared Album of 2006

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
82

Universal acclaim - based on 33 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 27 out of 33
  2. Mixed: 6 out of 33
  3. Negative: 0 out of 33
  1. BBC collective
    90
    It’s exciting stuff, simple yet deadly effective.
    Read full review
  2. Dot Music
    90
    Such is the depth and quality of Turner's songwriting, it plays like a best of.
    Read full review
  3. musicOMH.com
    90
    It's not a totally perfect record, for which we should be thankful - remember what happened to The Stone Roses after they'd released their flawless debut? - but it is an excellent first album, and gives notice that Alex Turner is already one of this country's best lyricists.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »