To the audience which filled up about 60 percent of the concert hall on Friday, the SSO and all concerned, including the soloist, probably owe you an apology of some sort. Lacklustre would be too mild a description for the performances on Friday of Mozart's Oboe Concerto, and especially, Mahler's Fifth.

While the orchestra was largely secure in the technically rather easy music in the Mozart, the conducting showed no new insights and was rather just competent - musical dialogues between the orchestra and soloist were inadequate, and Mozart's rowdy sense of humour, initiated by the soloist, didn't appear to be appreciated by Kamu, nor the orchestra, which was singularly uninspired.

Perhaps this music isn't great Mozart, but it still is Mozart - if it's programmed it should be at least worked on so that its best qualities can be brought out - better not to program than to program and perform uninvolvingly. On Friday soloist Emanuel Abbühl played rather bravely, but his reed (always a problem on sensitive woodwinds) gave him many problems, and required adjustment countless times, disturbing the flow of the music continually. On Saturday though, everything went like oil, his oboe soaring above the orchestra effortlessly, and displaying an unfailing musicality, so much so that I couldn't believe it was the same person - the level of confidence and security was so different.

The Mahler posed a different set of problems - if a major music-appreciating sponsor had listened to Friday's concert, it would probably have put paid to further sponsorship. From all accounts the SSO's playing either deproved significantly from the first time they played this symphony or Friday caught them on a particularly bad day (in the event, it was probably both).

Worse still, on Friday Okko Kamu seemed nearly void of ideas - from the blandly nervous opening that the principal trumpetist himself didn't seem quite able to carry off to the end of the second movement, I could hardly find a moment which particularly caught my attention - really a sad thing to be able to say about this symphony.

Everywhere I found myself comparing Kamu's exceedingly bland interpretation to Shui Lan's detailed and carefully thought out one, which was not without much passion, but which had many layers more detail than Kamu's. A quick look at the score will reveal what I mean - and those who had the misfortune to be at this concert will realise that Mahler, the impeccable dynamic, tempo and expression marker was totally unheeded. I would go into more detail about the shaping of the trumpet tattoo and how Mr. Natzke's vibrato, great in Russian music was a little out of place here, but the big details and overall conception were so glossed over that I'll probably leave that to some other time.

Strangely for the orchestra, every section, but particularly the strings seemed unfamiliar with their music, with their attempts at sight-reading leading them to rushing vital passages, for example the four-bar phrases that lead up to the numerous climaxes - in the process spoiling each and every climax. Even the great D-major apparition of the Chorale in the Finale was weakened in the process, though the cracked trumpet note (one of the many which littered the symphony, and rather unforgivable for a principal) at slightly earlier Pesante segment should have wiped out any illusions I had that this might at least be performed properly.

The Scherzo, incidentally the longest in symphonic literature, was equally 'clueless' - taken at a rather fast pace, as were other movements, but throughout rather void of 'interpretation' of any sort. No portamenti, no slight rubato, no colouring of the woodwinds, nor in the bowing of the strings - everything was rather staid and unimaginative - Mahler's Austrian hills evened out and made nonsense of amid the busy string counterpoint, which had the same problems as in the first and second movements - continually rushing where the tempo should have remained constant, and worse still where it should have broadened. Not enough was made of the tempo differences, the Trio portions not allowed to settle in and contrast with the Scherzo. Most of all was the inability of this Scherzo to dance, so important in all Mahler's scherzi, that was so infuriating.

The Adagietto was taken at a slow speed, and was rather well-played, and even touching, as was the Finale, colourless and badly paced though it was, however the sheer lack of musical ideas and lack of understanding of the musical gestures in the First and Second Parts that lie behind Mahler's music was so numbing that this was all too little, too late, at least for this listener. It was all in all rather tedious.

How can I explain then the much more successful performance the next day? More rest? Better sight-reading? No morning rehearsal? A better audience turnout? Kamu's interpretation certainly didn't budge, so perhaps it was a combination of all these factors.