Rhetorical Analysis of Field Artifacts

Artifacts:

1. Scholarly Analysis of Mozart’s Jupiter Symphony K.551 (JSTOR article)

2. Youtube Recording” Mozart: Symphony No.41 in C major, K.551 “Jupiter” (with score)

1. Scholarly Analysis of Mozart’s Jupiter Symphony K.551 (JSTOR article)

2. Youtube Recording” Mozart: Symphony No.41 in C major, K.551 “Jupiter” (with score)

Music is the art of combining syllables, pitches, and understanding to contextualize different scenarios, perspectives, and insights. While there are varying genres of music that include differing stylistic choices, the basis of all musical understanding is prevalent. Music, especially understanding the theory that goes behind music, is paramount in order to adequately understand any style of music. While musical genres, such as jazz or pop, are often  improvisationally based, classical music requires calculated, rigid thinking in order to properly understand certain musical formulas. Classical music stands at the intersection of artistry and analysis, where performance and scholarship intertwine to preserve and interpret centuries of musical tradition. 

The classical discourse community is composed of performers, conductors, educators, and scholars who are united by their dedication to the study, interpretation, and preservation of classical music. Members of this community often interact in concert halls, conservatories, rehearsal spaces, conferences, and performance venues, where they exchange their ideas and collaborate to refine their understanding of music. Community within this discourse community often occurs through a variety of channels, including scholarly publications, concert program notes, vlogs, score analysis’, masterclass, or forums. These methods of communication allow for musicians to collaborate, share insights, perspectives, and engage in professional dialogue that deepens appreciation for musical works. Ultimately, the classical music community’s ongoing exchange of knowledge and artistry sustains both the intellectual and emotional traditions that define this field. In an era where music is constantly changing, new styles are being developed, and new insights are produced it is exceedingly important to preserve historical music and theory. The classical discourse community often collaborate in order to preserve said music, with calculated thinking and intellectual jargon, musicians use online spaces to communicate with one-another. 

This essay examines 2 different artifacts that reflect how members of the classical discourse community construct meaning through  different lenses. One artifact is a scholarly analysis of Mozart’s Jupiter Symphony K.551 published in a musicology journal; the other artifact is a youtube recording of the same symphony. While both artifacts are focused on the same musical work, they approach the situation in different ways. One mode provides the calculated thinking behind a very famous composer, while another mode showcases the execution of Mozart’s symphony.  The scholarly article conveys the thought process behind the composer, certain musical modes and phrases and why they were used. The article explains the emotional, financial, or analytical situation that led the composer to create the work. While there are technical aspects of the symphony that the composer incorporated, such cadences, polyphonic rhythms, or harmonies; there are also different situations that resulted in the composer creating the work. The scholarly analysis is the thought process behind the composer, it’s the reason he did what he did. Contrarily, the youtube recording is the execution of the symphony itself. The recording communicates through musical expression, phrasing, visual elements, and emotional resonance to engage listeners. By comparing these two artifacts, the analysis will reveal how the classical music community bridges intellectual analysis and artistic performance, demonstrating that rhetoric in this field exists not only in words or on paper, but also in sound.  

Composed in 1788, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart’s Symphony No. 41 in C major, L.551, commonly known as the Jupiter Symphony, represents the pinnacle of the stereotypical Classical symphonic tradition. As Mozart’s final symphony, and notably one of his most famous symphonies, it is renowned for its complex counterpoint, harmonic sophistication, and emotional range, blending rigor with expressive power. The work embodies the Classical era’s ideals of balance, clarity, and concise form while foreshadowing the dramatic intensity of later Romantic era compositions. Because of its intricate structure and symbolic importance, the Jupiter Symphony has remained a central topic within the classical music discourse community, inspiring both analytical scholarship and producing countless performances. 

The two artifacts selected for this analysis reflect differing yet complementary modes of engagement with this form of music. The first artifact, being a scholarly article published in a peer-reviewed musicology journal, examines the analysis of music through historical context. It addresses an academic audience of musicians, researchers, and educators, seeking to uncover how Mozart’s compositional techniques later contributed to the symphony’s lasting impact. So how exactly did Mozart create this symphony? The article explains that as Mozart moved to Vienna, Austria he was exposed to a “wider variety of musical styles than is generally acknowledged” (P. Brown, 2003). Brown’s scholarly tone and reference to stylistic diversity appeal to ethos and logos, establishing credibility and framing Mozart’s composition as both technically and culturally significant.  Mozart never intended his last symphony to be as famous as it is now, in fact, he never wanted to publish it.  Mozart was widely known for his famous compositions; however, what is not as widely known was his struggles with money and his obsession with living a grandiose lifestyle. Mozart “lived behind his means” ultimately causing his last few years to be spent in crippling debt and turmoil.  While many theorize that he wrote this symphony to make commission, others believe that he wrote this symphony as a form of personal expression. Mozart wrote this symphony as a dedication to the Roman god “Jupiter.” Jupiter sits at the pinnacle of the Roman pantheon and represents power, joy, expression, and freedom. This is seen through the up-beat musical motif present through the work.  While the scholarly article presents a logical and historical explanation of Mozart’s compositional process, the YouTube recording communicates through auditory and visual rhetoric. The performance of Symphony No. 41 in C major, K.551 “Jupiter”, accompanied by a visual score, provides an experience that is simultaneously intellectual and emotional. The recording’s rhetorical appeal lies in its ability to make the abstract theory previously mentioned tangible, listeners can actively hear the counterpoint unfold on the score while hearing how different melodic lines interact. This form of communication appeals primarily to pathos and kairos, pathos through the emotional delivery of the orchestra, and kairos through the accessibility of the media. In other words, listeners do not have to travel to concert halls or venues in order to listen to the music Mozart produced. While it is important to understand the background of the creation of Mozart’s Jupiter Symphony, it is equally important to analyze the creation of the artifact itself. Through his analysis, Brown includes jargon and information that ultimately contributes to his desire to revisit historical misconceptions about Mozart. This bolsters the connection between classical musicians, similar to Brown. Brown’s exigence, or reasoning for creating this intellectual artifact, can be best attributed to his love for understanding, music, and history.

Unlike the article, which targets an academic audience, the Youtube video reaches a much broader audience. Listeners from all over the globe can immerse themselves with the symphony. The visual score, tempo, phrasing, and the conductor’s interpretation all function rhetorically to convey meaning. The Youtube video targets visual and auditory sensors; ultimately invoking pathos. While Brown’s article explains how Mozart composed the symphony and what specific harmonic structures were used, the video artifact provides tangible evidence. Unlike the article which targets a smaller demographic, the video has a much larger scope. While the video caters to the classical discourse community, viewers from around the globe can bear witness to Mozart’s Jupiter Symphony. This video expands audience appreciation and keeps tradition alive. 

Conclusion

When comparing the scholarly analysis and the Youtube performance of Mozart’s Jupiter Symphony, it is evident that the classical discourse community not only relies on intellectual stimulation, reasoning, and theory but also emotional tangibility and modes of communication in order to preserve and reinterpret musical tradition. The scholarly article appeals to logos and ethos, using historical research and technical language to uncover Mozart’s compositional intent, while the performance appeals to pathos and kairos, bringing the same ideas to life through sound and accessibility. These artifacts in tandem demonstrate that rhetoric in classical music extends far beyond words or reasoning, it has the capability to live in performance, analysis, and ongoing dialogue. Ultimately this seamless blend of artistry and scholarship allows the classical discourse community to keep centuries-old works continually relevant in an ever-changing landscape.