A YOUNG COMPOSER WITH A DEMOCRATIC APPROACH

At first glance, there’s nothing unusual about the printed program for organist Eckart Seeber’s recital tonight at St. John’s Lutheran Church in Orange.

A brief biography of the young musician is followed by the program, consisting entirely of examples from his prodigious output as a composer (the concluding Organ Symphony is listed as Opus 541). But below the agenda, something catches the eye:

Your evaluation of the music is highly appreciated. Please, drop the ballot that corresponds with your opinion into the provided ballot box when leaving. Thank You.

Immediately below are printed three choices: Very Good, Fair and Poor.

“I don’t feel any shame for what I do,” the Austrian-born musician stated flatly. “I think it’s impertinent to claim that an audience doesn’t know what it likes, or that a composer doesn’t care what an audience wants.”

The brashness of youth. Seeber is all of 22.

“I started composing when I was 12,” Seeber said. “As long as I can remember, I was attracted to music that was tonal. Music, I feel, has to be liked. With any piece of art, one has to find it interesting.

“Today, audiences are irritated by what they hear. It’s non-understandable. It doesn’t convey feelings or a message.”

Seeber admitted that his values are deemed old-fashioned by some: “My teachers (at the Innsbruck Conservatory) were mostly discouraged by my ideas,” he said. “ ‘That’s not the way you do it these days,’ they told me. ‘You mustn’t neglect Schoenberg and Berg.’ When my family moved to Canada four years ago, I found the same thing: lots of negative response from fellow composers.”

And from audiences? Since developing his secret ballot system, Seeber has been able to judge his success among listeners in purely numerical terms: “About 95% circle ‘Very Good’ and around 4% list ‘Fair.’ I might get a ‘Poor’ now and then. Quite often, there will be a kind note scribbled on the ballot. One told me I needn’t bother with the ‘Poor’ rating, since no one could describe my music that way.”

This is not mere ego gratification, he insisted. “Applause is not enough (in judging response). It’s usually directed toward the performer rather than the music. And, besides, an audience usually goes along with the crowd. But if you can secretly evaluate, you’re more inclined to be honest.”

If his music is mostly tonal--i.e. melodic--why even wonder how an audience will respond? Except for a small segment of avant-gardists, aren’t most people more fond of traditional music?

That’s just the point, Seeber responded.

“Music should be a language that can be understood by as broad a spectrum of listeners as possible. Yet no one will admit this. ‘It’s interesting,’ they will say about a new work, not wanting to admit they didn’t like it.

“I used to go to concerts and feel fooled by the composer. He would use all kinds of gimmicks, but there would be no substance.”

Reaction to his compositions from professional listeners--the critics--has been hard to come by, Seeber noted with regret. “It’s difficult to get reviews of organ recitals. But some have come, writing that I seem to be developing my own style. And it’s true: I’m trying to go my own way.

“Influences? I try to pick out things. I like Stravinsky’s use of colors and rhythms, for instance. And I love the simple melodies of Beethoven.”

Though a mere lad--and an unknown one at that--Seeber expressed optimism that his musical approach may one day catch on. “If you’re a greenhorn, it’s very difficult, since you don’t have a name that sells. I’m working to overcome the barrier of being a new contemporary.”