Talk:Let Us Now Praise Famous Men

Refimprove template
I'm adding the refimprove template, because the article has only one citation. Katiedert (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Vocal Setting
There is some vocal setting of Ecclesiasticus 44 1-15, to which cross-reference ought to be made in an article with this Subject.

It is identified, probably, in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Finzi; and http://www.geraldfinzi.com/works_uk.php refers.

I've not found Finzi's words on the Web in writing; but they can be heard at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CznY76R_bJ4.

Words set by Vaughan Williams too : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5elfdz1aBxk, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAP4M1VdNLM.

94.30.84.71 (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Also nice; "we7" has it : Let Us Now Praise Famous Men - Cardiff Festival Choir, Owain Arwel Hughes. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That's all well and good, but it has little or nothing to do with this book. Remember, Wikipedia articles are about specific subjects, not phrases. 75.36.150.121 (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There should certainly be a reference, in the article, to the setting by Ralph Vaughan Williams; there are several versions on YouTube. That setting is extremely well known in the UK, whereas the book is scarcely heard of. There should also be a disambiguation page, so that those searching for the music do not get led astray to an article about an obscure book. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 10:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

This article needs to be properly referenced or stubbed.
In its current state, the article is both imbalanced--it has basically no criticism of the book, though there has been scholarly criticism of LUNPFM--as well as almost completely unreferenced. That needs to change, or it needs to be stubbed until that IS changed. LHM 22:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Dead link to the edu-site removed!
Bam! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.52.207.149 (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Documentary Criticism
"Although the book is presented as documentary and "true", the pictures were actually somewhat posed, for technical and aesthetic reasons, leading to current controversy over the truth of historical records.[4] This was not uncommon in photography of this time period."

--> This is perhaps better left to articles which discuss documentary photography and the documentary style directly, as this is a concern shared by all such works, from the advent of photography to the present day. It is, after all, impossible, to ignore the camera's gaze. That is to say, we all react and pose in one form or another when confronted as the subject of such an image, and there are few series which have gone so far as to feature an artist completely hidden from view.TerryToogood (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

--> It's also probably false. The original claims Morris cites are bogus, the book discussed here *does* refer to the alarm clock in another place, "the loud zinc flickering of the cheap alarm two hours advanced upon false time" is a clear reference to an alarm clock. Further, more recently published "Cotton Tenants" explicitly mentions that each family owned a cheap alarm clock. Morris is simply wrong, because he was relying on a source (Curtis) that was simply wrong. There's no clear evidence that Evans staged anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amolitor (talk • contribs) 04:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

--> I have simply gone ahead and deleted the section. There is (or at any rate ought to be) a controversy about the controversy, which itself appears to be simply rooted in sloppy scholarship. Enough is enough. If there is more to be said on it, as noted, it should be placed elsewhere. Amolitor99 (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)