Talk:Wozzeck

Date of composition

The Berg compositions list says the opera was begun in 1917 but this article says it was begun in 1914. Badagnani 11:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like 1914 is correct. Badagnani 11:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

References needed

User:Nrswanson has requested on my talk page that I state my concerns about references here. I am not so much concerned that false information is being propagated, as that some vague and potentially misleading statements are difficult to verify. These also could use rewriting for clarity. A specific case is the reference to a letter by Webern (is there a collected edition of his correspondence—I am not aware of one, but I am not a Webern specialist—or is this being cited at second-hand?), followed immediately by a statement about Wozzeck being the predominant reason for Berg's fame. This was certainly true at the time of Berg's death, and may even be the case today, though the Violin Concerto comes to mind as a close contender. If it is meant as a continuation of the reference to Webern's letter, this should be made clear; if not, then the opinion needs attribution. Concerning Gurlitt's opera, the word "supposedly" is stylistically problematic for an encyclopedia article, in that a supposition must be made by somebody, and is therefore POV, OR, or both, unless a source is cited. (All of this is annotated in hidden text, BTW.) I see that I failed to insert the request I claimed to have done, for verification of the success of John Rea's arrangement, but I will do so forthwith.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-violence

The sentence "Though Berg's musical style is not as violent as some other composers might have written for this story, the style suits the subject matter" in the opening section doesn't make much sense to me. Not only does it seem to be original research, but it seems pretty irrelevant - we could make the same claim for any opera with a gory plot written by someone who wasn't the most violent composer of their time. Finally, it's misleading in the first paragraph, implying that Berg's style is notably gentle (which it isn't) or that one of the most important things to know about the work is its relative non-violence. Couldn't this sentence just be cut? On the other hand, it's been there since March 2006 and I'm new to editing, so maybe there's a good justification for its inclusion? Farrest (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Wozzeck and Woyzeck

Nothing in the article explaining why Berg's opera's title is Wozzeck whereas Büchner's play's title is Woyzeck. Annoying omission. Contact Basemetal here 15:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion? There is a very common Polish name 'Wojciech' (pronounced, using English phonetics, 'voy-chech' where the first 'ch' is like 'cheese' and the last 'ch' is like 'Loch'). A German, trying to copy the Polish pronunciation which is difficult and uncomfortable for a German, might write 'Wozzeck' as the closest German approximation to the Polish 'Wojciech.' That, I suspect, is what Alban Berg did.

'Wozzeck' may have been a depiction of a working-class Pole, where the population of industrial Silesia had a mixture of Germans and Poles.

Buchner's 'Woyzeck' is closer to the Polish 'Wojciech' than is Alban Berg's 'Wozzeck.' Prospero10 (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prospero10 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

That's OR. The real-life Johann Woyzeck (1780–1824) was born in Leipzig, and sentenced to death there after he killed a widow out of jelousy. The case and his psychological profile were widely reported in newspapers and that is where Büchner drew the inspiration for his "non-fiction" play.

The reason for "Wozzeck" instead of "Woyzeck" is far more trivial. Due to Büchner's notoriously bad handwriting, and the similarity of the German "long z" to German "y", it was believed until later in the 20th century, that Büchner's play was called "Wozzeck", and it was first published and performed under that name. This was the (only) version upon which Berg could base his opera. -- megA (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Berg himself thought that Büchner was basing this character on a "Slavic type" even after knowing about Woyzeck (whose ethnic background I do not know can be assumed from his birth in Leipzig). It might be worth including this very delicately, but I hesitate to do so, especially absent some historical context to situate it all: it is not worthwhile as an essentialist trope but as a window into that context. MONTENSEM (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Correction: it was Oskar Baum who said this when interviewing Berg. MONTENSEM (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Actually, it was almost certainly Berg by context (the use of first person from there until two paragraphs later), only the formatting or editing makes it somewhat unclear: the rest of the printed interview, in this translation, is a long block quote not signaled as such, with a missing ending quotation mark before the interviewer's voice resumes with a "We spoke long...". MONTENSEM (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Just took a stab at this and hope to have succeeded. MONTENSEM (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Is the section 'Influence' not better named 'Quotations in other works' -- the actual influence of this opera is nearly impossible to summarize!140.177.205.223 (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Fragments

were the Fragments conducted by Clark the "Bruchstücke" (fragments) aus Wozzeck prepared by Berg himself (I believe...) and published by Universal Edition (in full score and reduced etc.) in 1924 (see OCLC 9886857) (and republished by them in the 1950s and 1970s?) Schissel | Sound the Note! 17:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Krenek's Orpheus

The reference in a footnote to Ernst Krenek's Orpheus opera is inexplicable to me. What is it doing there? 136.37.231.179 (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

unfinished business, now fleshed out MONTENSEM (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Musicodramatic synopsis

I'm not sure if I'll undertake it, but I think this article about Wozzeck will be difficult to understand fully without a properly musicodramatic synopsis. MONTENSEM (talk) 08:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

sfn error Jarman 1989

User:MONTENSEM, could you please fix the sfn error in Act 1 after "painted with eight descending fourths (or the circle of fifths)" which currently points to the non-existing reference "Jarman 1989"; it has to be "Jarman 1989a" or "Jarman 1989b". It would also be helpful to use these disambiguators in the Bibliography. Further, as Ross (2008) is not used in any citation; it should be moved to "Further reading". Lastly, there are five links to disambiguation pages in the text; they should be unlinked or disambiguated. Cheers, Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

Citation fixed (Jarman 1989a)

More clearly disambig'd Jarman 1989a+b in bib

Ross 2008 moved from bib to FR (could use it later but there are likely better sources for every claim in there outside of his own assessments; I tend to replace citations to Ross where possible)

Disambig links are to: iron law, dualism, microcosm, flesh and blood

My thoughts on these are

• suggest that iron law is rightly to the disambig as it goes straight to Goethe
• dualism disambig'd, I think I went to disambig originally bc it was simpler but either way works
• microcosm could be disambig'd but I feel like is useful here/helps the reader since it is intentionally evocative/ambiguous metaphorical/conceptual language from Adorno
• same with flesh and blood - sometimes the ambiguity is the point, this is a direct quote and functions as a meaning-laden idiom that's probably unfamiliar to many in all its resonances

Thanks! MONTENSEM (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Idk, I tried seeing if removing the disambig tag would work but it creates a tag and redirects

I read policy on this at Template:Dablinks/FAQ#What's wrong with links to disambiguation pages? and Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages but am not sure this situation of deliberate ambiguity or idioms is well addressed there

Lmk what you think

Thanks again, MONTENSEM (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I've also run into this problem occasionally. Sometimes I decided just to unlink the terms and trust the reader, sometimes I linked to Wiktionary terms, and sometimes I just kept the intentional link to a disambiguation page. It's all part of an editor's job; rigid rules are almost always wrong. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2026 (UTC)