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. 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
  2. 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.
  3. BenJ
    Jan 27, 2006
    3
    I thought the Libertines disbanded?
  4. danielb
    Feb 22, 2006
    3
    A confused debut. An even more confusing reception. I think The UK is playing a joke on us.
  5. ErwinK
    Feb 2, 2006
    3
    yawn. hype hype hype. zero originality
  6. prostitute_finger
    May 26, 2008
    3
    Too primitive and boring commercial shit. Only few interesting and fun moments exist.
  7. 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."
  8. CatM
    Apr 15, 2006
    3
    I found the album dull, monotonous, and lacking in musical creativity. Loads more room for expansion though.
  9. Coniseuer
    Apr 20, 2006
    3
    Don't bother with this. Reviewers are way off with their scores.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. AndyS
    Dec 18, 2006
    3
    Extremely overrated.
  13. johnnybgoode
    Jan 26, 2006
    3
    this CD is boring and just rips off oasis.
  14. 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.
  15. RH
    Mar 17, 2006
    3
    Boring, overhyped rubbish. Better than most of the mainstream pack, however.
  16. 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
  17. oliveri
    Mar 1, 2006
    2
    the stupidly immature album title only rings true if they're referring to people lavishing them with praise.
  18. 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.
  19. simonc
    Jan 31, 2006
    2
    I thought Britrock was dead in 1997
  20. 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
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. amuror
    Sep 27, 2006
    2
    Don't believe the evaluation of the mass communication. No CD that the rock lover should hear.
  27. 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.
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. DustinPrude.
    Apr 26, 2006
    2
    Its a bad experimental Strokes album.
prev
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 »