LSO and Gergiev shine together in Mahler 7

Tours are tough for most symphony orchestras. But for the London Symphony Orchestra, tours are a break from a hectic schedule of recording film scores and preparing a full symphonic program that's only performed once or twice.

So if playing Mahler's five-movement Symphony No. 7 under Valery Gergiev at the Kimmel Center on Tuesday was a relatively light day, it showed in the confidence with which the orchestra played music that lashes out in multiple directions - and in the dignity that brought to Gergiev's mercurial tendencies.

The London/Gergiev combination is a marriage of opposites. As someone who prizes spontaneity and adventure, Gergiev can even take an august ensemble like the Philadelphia Orchestra on some wild journeys that make Schubert sound like Tchaikovsky. But the London Symphony Orchestra seems to have a leveling effect on him; though performances aren't predictable, one need not guess (or fear) what might be next.

Furthermore, the LSO's chameleon qualities, which can make the group seem to have little personality of its own, gave way Tuesday to a distinctive string luster and brass-section virtuosity. A compensation for the flat acoustic of its home, the Barbican Centre? In any case, it's great to hear after the dull string sound (and variable ensemble) heard from Gergiev's Kirov Orchestra last year at the Kimmel Center. The tradeoff with greater dependability is less performance tension, and that's a loss. But at least there's more clarity to his interpretive intentions.

The Symphony No. 7 is Mahler's most nocturnal symphony: It has darkness without tragedy and crises that don't require catharsis - until the freaky final movement. Careering between militaristic marches and exhilaration too extreme to be sincere, it sounds like different movements cut and pasted.

On Tuesday, a bigger picture came together. Those wonderful bursts of orchestral color in the first movement, which can seem like a sudden black-and-white-to-color moment, had less magnitude and arrived in a more logical progression. Nighttime nature sounds of the middle three movements had so much clarity of intent, you noticed the symphony's reverse-negative kinship with the bright, daytime-ish Symphony No. 3. In the final movement, individual components didn't stick out as much as usual, and not only became downright cohesive, but seemed to belong to the rest of the symphony.

Gergiev's smart sense of operatic pacing was apparent. He allowed a long pause after the first movement, followed by four movements in a torrential emotional narrative that also had a good sense of architectural structure. Might a new Gergiev be emerging, with performances that aren't so much about high-impact events? The often haggard-looking conductor even appeared relatively rested. That's a new Gergiev indeed.

Contact music critic David Patrick Stearns at dstearns@phillynews.com.