Talk:Grand Funk Railroad

message: And Terry Knight had it coming.
I fail to see what the above comment has to do with the article.  Considering that the man was murdered, and his murder is completely irrelevant to the subject of the article, it is in extremely bad taste at best. ElfNinosMom 04:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What goes around comes around 

message: In the article, in the section referring to what happened to the band after the breakup, it was said that "Brewer and Schacher formed Flint with the addition of Billy Ellworthy," but the link to the band Flint is to a different band that never had either Brewer or Schacher.
I'm WAY too new to attempt to correct this myself, so I was wondering if one of you good folk could look into it.
Sugarat99 16:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inncorect Link To A Band 

message: This band was mentioned extensively in the Simpsons episode Homerpalooza, and doesn't even get a mention in the article - I really don't know if this says more about the band, or the article.--Macca7174 03:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not even a mention of the Simpsons reference?

message: I wonder if German Rock group Spider Murphy Gangs song "Mir san a Bayrische Band" (We are a Bavarian Band) refers to "We are an American Band". Comments anyone?
82.145.234.188 19:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mir san a bayrische band? 

message: Were GFR one of the groups that Spinal Tap were modelled on? I realise the main one is Black Sabbath.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.16.140 (talk) 09:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the detailed response. I'm confused, though, what does 1979 refer to? According to the "This is Spinal Tap" wikipedia page, they started in 1978 "Michael McKean and Christopher Guest met while in college in New York City in the late 1960s, and played music together. They worked with Harry Shearer and Rob Reiner on a TV pilot in 1978 for a sketch comedy show called The TV Show, which featured a parody rock band called Spinal Tap." Thanks. FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Spinal tap

message: While I personally think this is an accurate description of some of their early work (and they were certainly considered part of it during that time), I'm not sure if it's particularly neutral to include this in their genre tags. (Albert Mond (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Heavy metal' tag necessary?

message: The writer claims that "In 1970, they sold more albums than any other American band..."  However, a quick check at Wikipedia's website "Albums from the Year 1970" (http://tsort.info/music/ay1970.htm) shows three albums released by Grand Funk in 1970, totaling 5 platinum sales combined.  If you look at just two other artists, you can see that this is simply not accurate.  Simon & Garfunkel, at #1 on this chart, totaled 8 platinum.  And, the two albums released by CCR that year totaled 6 platinum.  I didn't take the time to check any other entries.  But, since the writer gave no reference to this claim, and since Wikipedia's own website Albums from the Year 1970 contradict the claim, one must assume that the writer had no facts for this statement, only subjective conjecture.
What else on this page is also inaccurate?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron.cole (talk • contribs) 22:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some research on this - checking Billboard amongst other sites - and have removed this claim as unsubstantiated. Grand Funk is not mentioned among the top 5 artists in sales for the year 1970. Simon and Garfunkel were indeed at number one and Santana was in the top five. Any way you approach it, that puts Grand Funk out of the running. If someone can come up with a source which can be cited to support the claim of top album sales, please feel free to put the info back in.THX1136 (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect claim by the writer of this article 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 23 August 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Grand Funk Railroad.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: The information in the article appears to be inaccurate concerning Mark Farners departure from the reunited band.
in a 2011 interview posted on YouTube, Mark Farner, Tells How His Drummer Sucker Punched Him Out Of Grand Funk Railroad - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJFt-uNfPQQ
I wouldn't want to try to edit the article to reflect this more accurate information, as I'm not sure just how to word it or provide a link to the YouTube interview. I suppose it would have to say something like "According to Mark Farner, his departure from the reunited band in 1998 was a result of his bandmates asking him to sign a contract which they misrepresented, giving them 2/3 and therefore majority share in the corporation, and allowing them to throw him out of the band"
In any case, I'm hoping someone who's more familiar with editing wiki will see this entry and will do the proper updating.  Mark Farner is such a good and honest guy, and I really hate to see his departure from the band misrepresented as if it was simply his choice alone to leave the reunited band, as can clearly be seen in the interview.
Thanks...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmeades (talk • contribs) 18:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mark Farner "Leaving the Band" to continue his solo career.not quite accurate... 

message: The "Critical appraisal" section (formally "Critical acclaim") has NPOV issue. First, I change the title of the section because the contents didn't completely support the notion of "Critical acclaim" for the band but rather more about notability, good or bad, plus much critical opinion of the band by music critics in the 70's was bad not acclaim. The new title better allows for critical opinion on the bad that's both good and bad. The fact is this section ignore the reputation they have with music critics of being one of the most disliked bands among critics of the era despite there mass popularity. The fact is that the band overall is very polarizing among rock fans these days, even though were popular at the time.  Thus we really should include critical opinion on the band both from the 70's and present, good and bad (were there any positive reviews from music critics during the 70's?). The only statement currently included in the section that reads "You cannot talk about rock in the 1970s without talking about Grand Funk Railroad!" only suggests they were a notable and popular band of the era without really saying anything about whether they were any good or not. Here are some links that can be a starting point for discussing the critical views of GFR in the 70's in the article:
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/grand-funk-railroad-is-this-band-terrible-41111/
https://revuewm.com/music/on-tour/item/2809-grand-funk-outlives-its-critics
https://ultimateclassicrock.com/grand-funk-railroad-lawsuits/
--Notcharliechaplin (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV issue with Critical Acclaim section which I change to "Critical appraisal"` for NPOV reasons. 

message: After looking at a number of classic rock bands wikipedia articles among other long time music bands, I determined that it's most common to discuss their place in music history, critical opinion )past and present", popularity, etc. in a "Legacy" section rather than a "Critical acclaim" section. That tends to be reserved more for article about particular albums that were/are critically acclaimed. And by the way, I do not need to seek consensus for a section title change unless there is evidence that iot is or will be especially controversial. Wikipedia calls this style of editing "Being bold". If there is reasons why any thinks the old title is better then explain your reasoning, rather then simply reverting it due to supposed lack of consensus. This article does not appear to a very actively edited one at this time so I doubt edit will cause much fuss but I welcome anyone to share why the think the old section title was better. If your going to include a section on ""Critical acclaim" then you better be able to quote a number of critics that express eclaim of the band and not have many critics who hated the band 9as you did with GFR back in the 70's. A legacy section allows for both critical acclaim and disdain as well info on how they remained very popular among the general public despite many critics of the time hating them.--Notcharliechaplin (talk) 05:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for "Critical acclaim" section title change to "Legacy".  

message: R…U…F…ing serious? THE founder, leader, lead vocalist, main songwriter, and glue that held it all together, is not mentioned!!! 2601:3C3:4100:AB10:392B:BD1D:2DCF:5D37 (talk) 05:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: False. Farner is featured in the article. HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mark Farner