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!
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 »