Arts concert review

The BSO offers fresh takes on Debussy and Mahler

Nelsons conducts Debussy’s Nocturnes and Mahler’s fourth symphony

11036 nikola
Nikola Hillebrand performs the soprano solo in the final movement of Mahler’s Symphony No. 4 on Thursday, Oct. 2, 2025.
Photo courtesy of Winslow Townson

Debussy’s Nocturnes, Mahler’s Symphony No. 4 

Boston Symphony Orchestra (BSO) 

Conducted by Andris Nelsons 

Featuring the Lorelei Ensemble and Nikola Hillebrand on soprano 

Boston Symphony Hall 

Oct. 4, 2025 

The Boston Symphony Orchestra (BSO) continued its exploration of the fin de siècle repertoire. The two orchestral works featured this week, Debussy’s Nocturnes and Mahler’s Fourth Symphony, both featured choral additions in their last movements.

Nocturnes is the first of Debussy’s three-part structured orchestral works following his Prélude à l'Après-midi d'un faune, a single-movement piece. While many describe his music as “Impressionist,” Debussy disliked the adjective when applied to his own works. However, there is little doubt that he intended his pieces to evoke certain images or “impressions.” 

Nocturnes begins with Nuages, a slow motion of the clouds swept along by a stormy wind and a general feeling of uncertainty. Conductor Andris Nelsons showed particular restraint in this movement. At points where contrast should be given, there were subtle touches depicting quick changes of mood, only to return to its original cloudy landscape as if nothing happened. 

In many ways, the second movement Fêtes sounded like a bird’s eye view of a festival with a distant, observational perspective. At various points, sounds gradually died off in an almost ominous way. Nelsons had great control and balance over the various sections of the orchestra throughout the movement. 

The Lorelei ensemble shined through the final movement. While the ensemble was initially too loud and timbre too heavy compared to the orchestra, the movement ultimately succeeded. Debussy intended Sirènes to be mysterious, even hypnotic; the matted and underlying voices achieved this with great effect, creating just the perfect amount of simultaneous blending and distraction that were uncomfortable in a good way. Interestingly, the choir was positioned towards the back left of the stage unlike its standard location at the center back. It is unclear whether or not this was a deliberate attempt to create asymmetry across the hall by relocating the choir to a corner.

Mahler’s Fourth Symphony is one of his shortest symphonies and is the last work of his “early” or “Wunderhorn” period. This symphony, along with the Second and Third Symphonies, form a trilogy with each work containing choral movements based on the poem collection Des Knaben Wunderhorn. Choral movements would not appear again in Mahler’s works until the Eighth Symphony. 

Nelsons started off the first movement with a bold approach for the tempo, noticeable in the brisk pace of the main sleigh bell theme. The heavy rubato and tempo changes in different sections was also immediately distinguishable. Another overarching aspect throughout the performance was the freedom Nelsons gave to the brass section, which was much stronger compared to typical performances.

The first movement was largely successful while occasionally veering into risky territory. The relative emphasis of countermelodies and themes was helpful, especially during the development and navigation in this relatively straightforward but lengthy sonata-allegro form. The strong foreshadowing of the eventual return of these themes also make this movement compelling. 

The same approach for the second movement, however, was less successful. While this was less troubling during the trio sections (which are gentle Ländlers), the scherzo section contains one of the most delicate interplays in Mahler’s oeuvre. In particular, the single solo violin must fight off the whole brass section, especially at the second and third scherzos. While the Todtentanz theme was clear at the beginning, it was difficult to discern the same theme later due to the overwhelming brass, despite concertmaster Nathan Cole’s compliance with the score and passionate playing per Mahler’s instructions. 

The third movement consisted of themes and variations that revert to the G Major home key. The cellos stated the form beautifully in a slower tempo than usual. The themes were clearly stated and the variations were appropriately emphasized based on their links to the original theme. The anticipated E Major climax was also highly satisfying; the orchestra avoided losing focus afterwards and the bass figures were done justice by the timpani and the double bass. Nonetheless, some issues of the second movement, such as the slightly overwhelming brass, persisted. 

Due to the exposed writing of the movement, there were a few moments where the coordination between instrument groups was either not smooth or divided in their interpretation. For example, some players were playing vibratos and some were not at moderately quiet sustained notes. 

The last movement is unique in that the perspective now moves to a (child’s) vision of heaven. Soprano Nikola Hillebrand’s performance was excellent, finishing the symphony in a high note with an appropriate mix of both unwavering optimism and juvenile naïveté. An easy pitfall is being so naïve that the interpretation becomes mocking, a pitfall that Mahler himself was quite worried about. 

Nelsons took a relaxed, sensible tempo, rightfully assigning the communication of the important theme to Hillebrand — a decision that avoided the possibility of misunderstanding. The earthly troubles represented by the sleigh bell theme was a fresh contrast to the otherwise serene movement. It is worth commenting that the last strophe deviates from the home key and finishes the symphony at E Major, indicating that the listeners are “in heaven” as the symphony concludes. This “ascent” comes with a sense of calm and otherworldliness that Nelsons masterfully delivered with very fine control of the woodwinds — an instrument group that was mostly on top form throughout the night.

Overall, the concert was an enjoyable evening with a mostly successful performance of Debussy (4.5/5) and a pleasant but relatively uneven rendition of Mahler (3.5/5).