The last couple of weeks were quite busy for the high-flying forty-two year-old Yannick Nézet-Séguin, who led all his current and future East Coast ensembles over that time span. He conducted three subscription concerts with the Philadelphia Orchestra, repeating the same program – Bernstein, Mozart, Schumann – at Carnegie Hall. In between, he led Der Fliegende Holländer performances at the Metropolitan – where he will assume the title of Music Director Designate next season – and he contributed to the success of the Metropolitan Opera 50th Anniversary at the Lincoln Center Gala. Finally, Nézet-Séguin conducted three other performances with the Orchestre Métropolitain, the other ensemble for which he serves as Music Director. The last concert in Montreal was prefaced by a rather emotional ceremony during which the city’s native son was presented with an honorary degree by the prestigious McGill University.
La Maison Symphonique was packed for a Sunday afternoon performance that, at least on paper, didn’t look too exciting. The main work on the program was Bruckner’s Symphony no. 1 in C minor, a work that today’s public is still less familiar with. Contrary to recent trends favoring the earlier, “Linz” version of the symphony, Nézet-Séguin opted for the late, less unruly and more conventional “Vienna” score. It has always been accepted that Bruckner’s first numbered symphony owes more to Mendelssohn, Liszt or Berlioz than to Wagner. In his introductory words, the conductor emphasized a Schubert link and his interpretation minimized the importance of those moments recalling the massive sound world of Wagner. He chose instead to accentuate the melodicity, repetitions and the “divine lengths” redolent of Schubert’s 9th Symphony. Surprisingly for such an energetic conductor, Nézet-Séguin leaned largely towards an early 19th century-inspired lightness and clarity, putting a lesser accent on the Romantic effusiveness and impassioned intensity that are, after all, an integral component of this score’s fabric. At the same time, all the premonitory elements – successive unresolved climaxes, unstable rhythmic patterns – that make this score so important for understanding Bruckner’s subsequent evolution, were properly underlined. The arch of the “Adagio” was beautifully constructed. The “Finale”, arguably one of Bruckner’s most accomplished ones, was relentlessly driven. The orchestra played with suppleness and refinement, producing an admirably balanced sound.