I don’t quite understand this a post because Arctic Monkeys first emerged to a wider audience around 2005 and were at their commercial peak in the UK around 2006, Having number one singles and albums, which quite a while before bands like Catfish and the Bottlemen. It was during a time when that kind of music was pretty popular and mainstream again and quite a few decent bands around, most of which made Oasis seem dated at the time.

There is 8 years difference between the debut Arctic Monkeys album and Catfish and The Bottlemen. Different era. That’s like comparing The Libertines to mid 90s Britpop and as if they’re in the same era. Or putting Oasis in the same year as the Smiths.

When AM started getting popularity around 2005, Lyrically and in terms of delivery in the Sheffield accent and local terminology etc.. it was a little different at the the time, which made them stand out among a lot of bands just jumping on the back of The Strokes and Libertines success a few years earlier.

That era was no worse than mid 90’s Britpop. I.e a handful of genuinely good bands and lots of watered down versions of them.

Funnily enough I think that the AM album was the most basic and unimaginative, lyrically especially. There is some very good lyric writing scattered across all the albums but I thought that one was most generic.

I’m not actually a big fan of them, except a few songs.

I prefer the latter stuff to the early stuff for sure. I much preferred indie acts like Franz Ferdinand in 2005 than Arctic Monkeys though, just seemed a bit more fun and catchy. I do think they were overhyped in 2005, seemed more like a case of NME desperately searching for the next best thing (add the ridiculously overrated Libertines to that list too). This is a magazine that after all promoted dross like The Enemy, Catfish & The Bottlemen and the horrible band Brother, so their musical palette in finding a band was very narrowly defined. But objectively, they were a genuinely good band in that bracket, and probably the only good band that came under that indie rock banner.

Once they started moving away from the NME sound though is where they excelled for me and this is why they are a great band. There are eras of the band that capture different audiences, and there's a strong argument that each is legitimately brilliant.

I think they became better musicians as time went on and I prefer Alex Turner's crooner vocals compared to the earlier snarl. So for me, AM is their magnum opus. I don't like the revisionist thinking from those who disliked the band by trying to say their latest album Tranquillity Base is the best though - it absolutely is not and it's such a desperate attempt to appear edgy. It's an interesting album, got a great lounge vibe but it doesn't work as a whole. It's just too samey for my liking. Give it a year or so to cook, keep the vibe and atmosphere, write a couple of belting singles and they'd have a masterpiece. But I commend their ability to take risks and stay interesting, and for that matter, I'm really fascinated to see what they do next.

Their longevity is owed to their reinvention and to see the scruffy lads from Sheffield grow up is a fascinating career arc.