Peter Murphy: Wild Birds 1985-1995: Pitchfork Review
archive : A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z sdtk comp
Cover Art Peter Murphy
Wild Birds 1985-1995
[Beggars Banquet]
Rating: 6.0

Number of ultra-sexy, but literate, photos of Peter Murphy in package: 14

Ratio of photos to songs on album: 7:8

Number of times Peter Murphy is quoted in liner notes as saying: "The album does seem to bear the seeds of the melodic and still eclectic potential in my 'own' Peter Murphy musicality, a prototype exercise in the whole process of being a 'solo' artist.": 1

Number of ratio and fraction consultants used in compiling this index: 1

Number of times ratio and fraction consultant made milk come out through her nose while reading liner notes: 2

Number of times Murphy is referred to in liner notes as either "The Singer" or "The Voice" (sometimes italicized): 9

Number of excuses for this album offered in accompanying press material, other than that Murphy needed an album to tour behind but did not have time to record new material: 0

Ratio of absurd adjective usage (e.g. Nosferatic, saturnine, unfettered) in Wild Birds' liner notes to mentions of cannibalism on Brotha Lynch's Season of the Sickness: 2:1

Ratio of excellent songs to sub-par songs on Wild Birds: 7:1

Number of rare or unreleased songs on Wild Birds: 0

Number of excellent albums represented by the songs on Wild Birds, leaving aside Should the World Fail to Fall Apart and Love Hysteria, which were a bit uneven: 3

Number of reasons to overlook those three albums in favor of this compilation: 0

-Zach Hooker

TODAY'S REVIEWS

DAILY NEWS

RATING KEY
10.0: Indispensable, classic
9.5-9.9: Spectacular
9.0-9.4: Amazing
8.5-8.9: Exceptional; will likely rank among writer's top ten albums of the year
8.0-8.4: Very good
7.5-7.9: Above average; enjoyable
7.0-7.4: Not brilliant, but nice enough
6.0-6.9: Has its moments, but isn't strong
5.0-5.9: Mediocre; not good, but not awful
4.0-4.9: Just below average; bad outweighs good by just a little bit
3.0-3.9: Definitely below average, but a few redeeming qualities
2.0-2.9: Heard worse, but still pretty bad
1.0-1.9: Awful; not a single pleasant track
0.0-0.9: Breaks new ground for terrible
OTHER RECENT REVIEWS

All material is copyright
2001, Pitchforkmedia.com.