What’s cookin’ at the New York Philharmonic this week (and one day of next)? A very famous violin concerto; a bassoon concerto – yes, a bassoon concerto; and a Sibelius symphony. On the podium is Lorin Maazel, the orchestra’s music director.

Last season, he conducted an excellent – a truly memorable – performance of Sibelius’s Symphony No. 1. The Philharmonic has long been associated with a conductor rightly regarded as the best Sibelius man of our age: Sir Colin Davis. But on that occasion, Sir Lorin didn’t have to take a backseat to anyone. This fall, when I saw that the Sibelius Fifth was scheduled for late December, I wrote that it would be among the highlights of the music season.

So, I lied.

On Wednesday night, Mr. Maazel and the Philharmonic had a lamentable time with the Fifth. It started awkwardly, with unbeautiful sounds coming from the woodwind section (in particular). Sibelius requires beauty of sound, at least in this music. Furthermore, the orchestra played roughly, from a technical point of view. But Mr. Maazel’s musical intelligence was in evidence, as he followed Sibelius’s contours. Eventually, the orchestra got on track, and the first movement ended well, with thrilling, pounding timpani.

The second movement began with that quality that I can only call friendliness. Sure, the pizzicati should have been lighter, and more together, but the music still had that appropriate smile. As the movement continued, however, Mr. Maazel’s dynamics might have been subtler, and his orchestra might have employed more lyricism.

In the best performances, the third and last movement begins with a kind of surprise and wonder. Not on Wednesday night. What’s more, Mr.Maazel’s tempo was very fast,and he seemed slightly indifferent (which is rare for him).When the main theme, or motif, started, the orchestra suffered a near breakdown. Thereafter, they were sloppy, hurried, and scrambling – altogether second-rate. The conductor’s pauses between Sibelius’s final, majestic notes were stiff, unnatural, and unmusical – ill-judged.

This was not like Lorin Maazel. But it was rather like musical performance – on one night, off the next. I can’t tell you how this symphony went Thursday night, or how it will go tonight (or next Tuesday). I can only speak for Wednesday, the 28th.

That very famous violin concerto was Tchaikovsky’s, and it was played by Julia Fischer, the almost very famous young German. (Actually, she is of both German and Czech ethnici ty, according to her bio.) Mr. Maazel seems to be a champion of hers, as he had her play the Sibelius concerto – speaking of Sibelius – with him and the Philharmonic three seasons ago. That performance did not go well; at least the one I heard did not. Some of us thought she wasn’t ready for prime time.

But last season, she played a recital in Zankel Hall that was really quite fine. Maybe it was the Sibelius concerto she wasn’t ready for.

And tell me: Why does she, and everyone else, have to play the Tchaikovsky? What’s wrong with one of Mozart’s five? Is that so dishonorable? Not every fiddler is born to play the Tchaikovsky,and Ms. Fischer seems to be one of them.

In this grand, swashbuckling concerto, she was neither grand nor swashbuckling. That’s okay – there’s room for other approaches. Ms. Fischer was generally modest, correct, and pure, none of which is to be condemned. We can’t all be Maxim Vengerov (unfortunately). But, on the whole, Ms. Fischer needed to be much bigger, in both sound and spirit. She needed to lend this concerto more panache. Ultimately,she came off as a poised, accomplished student – top of her class.That does not cut the mustard.

Mr. Maazel conducted rather dully, and this was almost certainly because the soloist didn’t excite or inspire him. But he hired her, presumably.

And that bassoon concerto? It was Weber’s, and it was played by the orchestra’s principal, Judith LeClair. It’s nice to see these first-deskmen – or women – step out. Ms. LeClair looked smashing in her radiant blue dress, contrasting with her colleagues’ standard black.

Weber was kind to instruments that don’t have many concertos, including the bassoon. His concerto sounds just like him – like his operas, piano music, clarinet pieces. It is not immortal, but then we’re playing it in 2005, and it was written in 1811. Plus, bassoonists can’t live on “Peter and the Wolf” alone.

The Weber concerto unquestionably shows off the capabilities of the instrument, and Ms. LeClair showed off her own, considerable capabilities. She demonstrated great technical facility, and produced a variety of tonal colors. I should single out the cadenza in the second movement: It was beautiful and virtuosic.

But I have to ask you this: Have you ever noticed that a bassoonist seems to have to work really, really hard for what we get? And have you ever noticed that, even in happy music, the instrument can sound rather joyless? Me too.

Mr. Maazel did what he could with the piece, giving even the most banal phrases some dignity and style. The Weber began the concert, and was followed by the Tchaikovsky. I would have bet everything that the Sibelius would crown the evening. Um, not exactly.

Until January 3 (Lincoln Center, 212-875-5656).