From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Classical music
WikiProject icon Motet is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
WikiProject Music/Music genres task force (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon Motet is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardise music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the task force guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good and 1.0 standards.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.


There's no citation covering the uncertainty over the etymology of motet. A number of dictionaries, including the OED, as well as the Norton Encyclopedia of Music, say nothing of the "movere" influence. Does anyone have a source? Mcwabaunsee (talk) 07:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted from the Baroque section due to lack of citation:

The Baroque grand motet eventually merged with the cantata.

--Wahoofive 18:43, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I assume you argue that it is incorrect? Hyacinth 00:28, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Not only did they both phase out around the same time, mid-18th century, but it doesn't make sense that a French form and a German form would merge. --Wahoofive 01:19, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The statement, IIRC, came from the liner notes of a Naxos recording of Lully's grand motets. I don't have it handy here, but I suspect it was the same one that had Plaude lætare Gallia on it. I suspect that what the author meant to say was something like "multi-movement pieces like these, with parts for soloist, chorus, and instrumental obbligatos, would usually be called a cantata but Lully called his motets instead." -- Smerdis of Tlön 05:17, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Increasingly in the 14th and 15th centuries, motets tended to be isorhythmic; that is, they employed repeated rhythmic patterns in all voices"

I was under the impression that isorhythm is a general term, whereas panisorhythm means isorhythm employed in all voices (see Grove articles).

I agree, this sentence struck me as being inaccurate as well. Tjonp (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC).

Baroque motet[edit]

Who wrote this section? At least in italy, motets where a VERY important and spread form. It is not a 'cantata with crude latin words'! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC) What Is A Motet?

Isorhythmic Motet redirects to this page.[edit]

I seem to remember that there was a separate article for Isorhythmic Motets at one point though a history search does not seem to bear that out. Perhaps there was not, but rather this page contained at some point a satisfactory brief description of the definition of an Isorhythmic Motet with a more in depth exploration left to the entry for Isorhythm.

I guess I'm rather surprised to see all treatment of Isorhythm in a separate article even though it is discussed quite a lot on this entry.

Am I incorrect in thinking that I used to be able to send people to this entry (Isorhythmic Motet) and have them come away with a rudimentary knowledge of Talea and Color w/o having to refine their focus to another entry to find these two terms?

Perhaps this is the best way, but it struck me as odd to have the redirect here and then not actually _say_ what an Isorhythm is when it's at home with it's slippers off.

Thanks. --Thistledowne (talk) 02:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Restoration of Earlier version[edit]

This article seems to have undergone an undergraduate student treatment and while scads of references were added, they are not that valuable. Worse, the prose style was practically unreadable. I have, as a result, reverted back to the pre-assignment version. Editors may wish to consult the longer version here and add in those details that are deemed judicious. Eusebeus (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The heck is this crap —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)