# Talk:Ege Bamyasi

This is a classic album and we can do better than this stub! Secretlondon 21:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a classic. "One More Night" is greatly superior to the Phil Collins cover version. But we can't do better than this stub. There isn't much more to say about the album; it sold poorly in all markets, it influenced only a very few, obscure artists, it was not Can's first or last album, or the band's first or last with Damo Suzuki. The few substantial pieces of writing about it are record reviews from talented but unpublished or self-published authors (e.g. Julian Cope as mentioned below, Mark Prindle, George Starostin, etc). The lyrics defy analysis. There are no amusing anecdotes about its recording. It does not appear in the latest Lindsay Lohan film. Ege Bamyasi does not intersect with white middle-class teenage North America. -Ashley Pomeroy 18:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Julian Cope has reviewed it here I don't know if he counts as a professional reviewer, but I guess we can use a quote. Secretlondon 21:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
"I'm so green" - covered by Beck? [1]

In Turkish, it would be "Ege bamyası", with a dotless i. What should be considered the actual name of the album? Note that in Turkish an uppercase ı is I and an uppercase i is İ, so the album cover actually has a dotless i. Mats (talk) 08:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Should the article name be changed? How is it listed in the record company catalogue? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

it has nothing to do with 'the band members continued interest in world music', it's just a coincidence. germany has a large turkish minority and they have special shops there which are selling turkish brands of food. jaki liebezeit found the can in a turkish shop. 'can' is the brand name, it means life (and pronounced with a soft c, like 'jan'). the product, 'ege bamyası' is a special kind of okra, which grows in the aegean cost of turkey.
source : irmin schmidt 'the can on the cover is not a silly concept idea, it was a can jaki found in a turkish shop. there, the word 'can' means something like 'life'. there is no concept behind titles like 'vitamin c' and 'i'm so green'. (uncut magazine, no. 111, august 2006, interview by david stubbs)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.161.50 (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC) 

This could be better explained/ integrated into the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Second that, indeed if there is a linkable source this info should be in the article.139.47.80.201 (talk) 09:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone have access to that 2006 edition of Uncut? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Ah, just found an online copy here. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Have now added a new sub-section. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ege Bamyasi/CommentsTalk:Ege Bamyasi/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Last edited at 06:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC).
Substituted at 14:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ege Bamyasi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: LastJabberwocky (talk · contribs) 20:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Kyle Peake (talk · contribs) 11:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): 

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section): 

b. (citations to reliable sources): 

c. (OR): 

d. (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects): 

b. (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): 

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/fail: 

(Criteria marked  are unassessed)
This review will run over two days --K. Peake 11:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)


### Infobox and lead
December 1971 is not directly sourced as when the sessions started since the body says the end of 1971, not specifically the last month
 Done
Inner Space Studio → Inner Space, per the term studio being the name of the parameter
I think "Studio" is a part of the title like with Abbey Road Studios. In most cases it's written "Inner Space Studio" not "Inner Space". —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 07:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
The genres should be sourced out in the body, rather than having refs only here for them in the infobox
 Done
Shouldn't you add some info from the production section after mentioning the album being recorded in Weilerswist?
 Done
"they recorded the rest of the album." → "they recorded the remainder."
 Done
Remove the individual critics' comments since these are not notable for the lead; replace with accolades where publications ranked to lists
I make the reception more general removing Pitchfork mention and added a characterization from PopMatters. Still can tweak it. I looked up to Nebraska (album) lead section, and several others I don't remember. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 07:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
"Ege Bamyasi helped popularize" → "The album helped popularize" merge with the above para too
 Done
The inspirations are sourced, however I don't see where the detail is included of krautrock being popularised?
 Done
Not all of these musicians mentioned are written out as being included in the tribute album
 Done
Where is it cited that publications ranked the album as one of Can's best?
It's the one listed in the "best of" lists the most amount of time (Tago Mago and Future Days get less placements and rank below Ege Bamyasi). For example this and this —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 07:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)


### Background
First two paras look good!
"reaching #6, and" → "reaching number six, and" per MOS:NUM
 Done
The filming date and those who filmed it are not sourced
 Done
Add a comma after first half of 1972
 Done
The requested quote never ends; either add an end to this or remove the starting quote mark if it was not supposed to be a quote in the first place
 Done


### Production
Regarding genres being in the infobox but not in the body, either retitle to music and production adding them here or start a music and lyrics section talking about the album as a whole
 Done
"the group had recorded and edited" → "Can had recorded and edited"
 Done
""So that afternoon..." please attribute this quote to whomever said it
 Done
The Uncut para constitutes MOS:OVERQUOTE; place some of this into your own words
 Done


### Release and promotion
First para looks good!
"thirty live dates for the band" → "thirty live dates for Can" since this is a new para
 Done
"Can spent a month touring Britain" you should change to the UK if the band went to Northern Ireland as part of the tour too but if they stayed on the country's main island, change to Great Britain since the term Britain is too vague
 Done
Per WP:SEAOFBLUE, I would suggest removing wikilinks on Newcastle Upon Tyne, Birmingham, Plymouth and Bristol since these are cities often recognised internationally
 Done
Italicise The Peel Sessions
 Done
"On March 22, they" → "On March 22, 1973, they"
 Done


#### Cover artwork
Put some of Schmidt's quote into your own words; the last sentence for instance is a good example of what could be re-worded
 Done
""spirit" or "life"." → ""spirit", or "life"."
 Done


### Critical reception
Pitchfork rating is shown as 8.7 by the source, not 9.8
The links to the review of the first four Can albums. Monster Movie (debut) got 8.7; there are arrows that scroll to other scores. For some reason the archived version doesn't have the arrows. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 17:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Stylus → Stylus Magazine
 Done
"has received critical acclaim" → "was met with critical acclaim"
 Done
For any of these reviews where no person is mentioned by name, write "the staff of" at the start
 Done
"calling the group "a" → "calling Can "a"
 Done
Shouldn't you put some of the NME review into your own words?
I paraphrased it somewhat, but less than other quotes. Let me know what you think. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 09:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
"epic and spacey," calling" → "epic and spacey", calling"
 Done
"tightly wound funk."" → "tightly wound funk"." per MOS:QUOTE
 Done
Cut down on quoting of The Encyclopedia of Popular Music review, also you have not added an ending quotation mark here
 Done
Merge the Spectrum Culture para with the above one and add the release years of the albums in brackets
 Done


#### Accolades
Write a summary of the key rankings in prose above the table
 Done
Shouldn't the rankings and tables be sortable?
 Done
Add a column for the refs
 Done


### Legacy
#### Influence
Remove wikilink on Melody Maker
 Removed
Put some of Thurston Moore's quote into your own words; the last sentence is one area where this would be easy to do
 Done


#### Covers, samples and remixes
The source does not state the song has not been released
 Removed
Remove wikilink on Sonic Youth
 Removed
"from Damo Suzuki's vocals." → "from Suzuki's vocals."
 Removed
"In 2008, The Kleptones have incorporated" → "In 2008, the Kleptones incorporated" per MOS:THEMUSIC
 Done


#### In popular culture
You should italicise The Get Down: Original Soundtrack and not italicise the "of the same name" part, however neither this nor Preacher are sourced
 Done
Das Messer and Morvern Callar are not sourced
 Done


### Personnel
Shouldn't you split into sub-headings instead of sub-sections?
I changed "=" to ";". Is it what you meant? —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 17:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)


### References
Copyvio score looks too high at 49.5%; overquoting from Uncut being cut down will fix this
 Done
All references should be consistent in listing last name before first
 Done
Link Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG to De Gruyter on ref 1
 Done
Remove Stylus Staff from ref 4
 Done
Does ref 9 have MOS:CAPS issues or is that just how HIT BILANZ is stylised?
 Done
Remove Spoon Releases and fix MOS:CAPS issues with ref 11
 Done
MOS:CAPS and date formatting issues with ref 15; www.moredarkthanshark.org → More Dark than Shark and what makes this reliable anyway?
 Done It's an excerpt from an interview with the band members. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 09:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Wikilink Mute Records and only cite as publisher, nowhere else, on ref 17
 Done
Remove or replace ref 25 per WP:DAILYSABAH
I tried to find a substitute but couldn't find anything Solid. The Daily Sabah can be used for "uncontroversial Turkey-related events", and etymology isn't an event, but it seems uncontroversial. I can substitute Daily Sabah with this link taken from Wikidictionary. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 09:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)  Done
This link would be a suitable alternative, please. K. Peake 08:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Remove or replace ref 29 since Album of the Year was deemed unreliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 316
I know it's unreliable; I link to it since I couldn't find both Mojo and Q Magazine reviews. I have problems with my wiki library; can you help me make sure don't have access to them. "The Mojo Collection: 4th Edition" has bio for the album, but not the review. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 09:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Wikilink Simon & Schuster on ref 32
 Done
Fix MOS:CAPS issues with refs 33 and 48
 Done
Link New Musical Express to NME on ref 36
 Done
Cite Pitchfork as work/website instead on ref 37
 Done
Cite The Quietus as work/website instead with the wikilink on ref 46
 Done
Add an access date to ref 53
 Done
WhatSong does not seem to be reliable for ref 56; they use contributors
 Removed Caught before you :) hehe
Change ref 59's access date to be consistent with formatting
 Done


### Final comments and verdict
 On hold until all of the issues are fixed; great job here! --K. Peake 15:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
LastJabberwocky There are still points where I disagree with you; direct quoting of critics reviews should not be in the lead and Album of the Year needs to be removed even if you cannot find a replacement unfortunately. --K. Peake 08:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
We agree on the second point; I'm just whether you can help check if there is a source. I searched google books and archive.org, but don't have acelcess to newspaper.com and ProQuest, etc. I know this is not accounted into GA review, only asking to double check before permanently removing these reviews. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 10:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Regarding the quotes in the lead, I think the consensus is that they shouldn't be overly long (like I have with Future Days). I like brief quotes (I'll probably cut them down more; summarise more reception); especially because Can's music is more abstract than most music, and there is a risk of misinterpreting well written ambiguous quotes. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 10:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
@Kyle Peake: I put these two reviews as hidden text, removing the "Album of the Year" references. I also paraphrased one quote from the lead. MOS:LEADREL says the quotes doesn't always need to be duplicated in the body, but I duplicated another quote in the reception section. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 15:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

LastJabberwocky  Pass now, found the time to look through and this one is totally good to go! Thanks a lot for going over the Album of the Year reference problem, this was quite deep but you handled it phenomenally I could not have asked for more! --K. Peake 16:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Congratulations, LastJabberwocky, great job. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Martinevans123: Thanks, looking at my January work and comparing with my present writing/thoroughness skills, I really feel an improvement. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 18:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes, editors' skills generally improve! Article looks so much improved now. Thanks for all your efforts. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Popmatters.com here calls Ege Bamyasi "... an album that was every bit as compact and tetchy as its predecessor was epic and spacey." What does the word "tetchy" mean here? Is it supposed to be "techy" i.e. based on technology. Also we now have "fetchy" in the lead section, sourced to the Pitchfork review, which doesn't say that? Additionally the Pitchfork is quoted in the lead section, but doesn't appear anywhere in the main body? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Martinevans123, It was meant to be "tetchy" again. My main reason for the addition is to get nice words reflecting Can's style on this album in particular and get them out of different sources. Tetchy means "irritable and bad-tempered", which feels close to "tense" mention in the pitchfork review. Regarding this Also we now have "fetchy" in the lead section, sourced to the Pitchfork review, which doesn't say that? I'll work on it :). May be i'll find something else to add in the lead (something related to repetition and liquidity/flexibility). —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 08:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Ah right, thanks. Yes "tetchy" does seem close to "tense" in this context. My main gripes are just that the lead is meant to summarise the entire article i.e. not have anything unique and that it doesn't need to have sources as per WP:LEADCITE. Sorry to be so fussy. It's good to have something eye-catching in the lead and it looks like we have lots to chose from. Many thanks for all your efforts. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)