LPO, Nézet-Séguin, Royal Festival Hall

It seems from this review that I was at a different concert. As regards the Franck symphony, I found the performance thoroughly engaging in its variety, light and shade, brought out by Nazet-Seguin and the fine playing of the LPO. I realise that in reviews one must allow for the subjective feelings of the reviewer and, perhaps, his or her superior musical knowledge. However, Alexandra Coghlan's review is simply patronising, snide and arrogant, ignoring the tremendously positive response to the performance from the audience, which is reflected in other reviews of the concert (see the Telegraph and the Independent). Faure's Requiem was masterly, with the London Philharmonic Choir's riveting hushed opening (so disparaged by Coghlan) moving on to an overall tremendous performance. And Gerald Finley's lyric singing was absolutely in keeping with a work that essentially stresses peace, not retribution. One wonders about this reviewer's agenda - maybe that such a dismissive, insensitive review would not go unnoticed?

I wasa't there but I find it so hard to believe Nezet-Seguin ever guilty of 'lazy musicianship', only of sometimes over-egging the pudding in his great love for what he does. Is it possible the reviewer is guilt of lazy listening, or lack of sympathy for the Franck? And the final remark is not worthy when it's hard to persuade outsiders re funding. if anyone can get new audiences engaged, it's young Yannick.

I was at this concert with my daughter and grand daughter aged 14 and all I can say is that my daughter remarked at the end of the evening, " I thought I was in heaven!" Judging by the response from the audience, she wasn't the only one. Some of us go to enjoy, not to see how much fault we can find and we enjoyed EVERY minute!

I was at the concert and I would say that some of the technical criticisms are accurate. But to imply that the event was more or less entirely devoid of musical merit is in my view entirely misleading. And the final paragraph would perhaps have benefited from a little more of 'sensitivity' the author claims to have been lacking in the conductor.

Many decades ago, the Royal Festival Hall would publish in its monthly brochure an amusing section called 'Point Counterpoint' in which the hilariously contradictory views of critics were pitched against one another. Nowadays, it is entirely possible to do this for oneself, and Alexandra Coghlan's review, or rather trashing, ripely offers itself. Referrring to the performance of the Franck Symphony, she says: '...what we got was a rather more polite and non-committal series of emotions -Gallic shrugging instead of fiery French melodrama.' However, Tim Ashley in the Gaurdian, giving the concert 4/5, regarded the concert as 'hugely important' in rescuing the piece: 'Nezet-Seguin was superb in his architectural control and blistering in his delineation of the work's emotional trajectory. Begun in fire and turbulence, the performance ended in elated rapture.' So that would be 'non-committal' then. Ed Seckerson in the Independent was also hugely enthusiastic (4/5) about 'this vibrant come-back performance'. Ivan Hewitt (4/5) in the Telegraph found it a 'glowing performance' in which ...all cohered'. It is also entirely disingenuous to suggest that Richard Morrison 'was also rather heavily sceptical about the concert'. What he actually said about the Franck was: 'I can't imagine a better champion than Yannick Nezet-Seguin'. Morrison's problem was with the work itself. There is more general agreement about shortcomings in the Faure Requiem, although Ashley praised Nezet-Seguin as 'an impeccable conductor of choral music, and the fervour and monumentality of the LPO Choir's singing were remarkable.' I could offer many further contrarian quotes. While I appreciate that critics are entitled to differ, I find it not only inaccurate, but also grossly unfair to suggest that '...such lazy musicianship deserves neither kindness nor the applause the audience gave so generously', and that these performances are a threat to public funding. That is an absolutely outrageous claim. Nor do I take to the patronising tone adopted in the response to Rosemary. The critic and her friend might well be 'experienced performing and academic musicians', but what does that make everyone else who has a radically differing opinion - a load of cloth-ears? And presumably, by extension, the noted broadsheet critics giving this concert 4/5 are tone-deaf and incompetent? For what it's worth, I enjoyed these performances immensely. With over fifty years of concert-going, I have never managed to hear the Franck live, although, like many others, I was brought up on Beecham's classic EMI recording from France and have lived with Monteux's wonderful RCA version, now in superb SACD. Nezet-Seguin had a marvellous grip on structure of this piece so that the fabulous shift into D major at the end of the first movement was a hugely uplifting moment. Splendid playing from all sections, especially the woodwinds, and a thoroughly joyous last movement. Some niggles in the Faure, particularly with the solosits, but what typically imaginative LPO planning to set this piece against the Franck. Despite the choice of this enlarged 1900 version, Nezet-Seguin's dramatic, yet profoundly reflective take on the work was very moving indeed. Your critic doesn't seem to be having much fun at all these days, since she also had a miserable time at Florez's recital the other day.