Lorin Maazel put on an inviting, well-balanced program with the New York Philharmonic on Wednesday night. The concert ended better than it began – which, I’m afraid, was not hard to do.

The maestro started with Schubert’s Symphony No. 5. This has been a pretty good season for early Schubert symphonies. (What’s an early Schubert symphony? Any of them not the “Unfinished” or the “Great” Cmajor.) Back in October, Itzhak Perlman conducted – yes, conducted – No. 3 with the Philharmonic. And earlier this month, Riccardo Muti performed No. 4 with the Vienna Philharmonic, in Carnegie Hall.

No. 5 is all grace and sparkle, very Mozartean. And Mr. Maazel proved himself a superb – even a stupendous – Mozartean during the Philharmonic’s recent Mozart blowout. (Two hundred fiftieth birthday, you know.) And he is no mean Schubertian, as he proved a couple of seasons ago when he conducted the “Unfinished” and the “Great.” Those performances linger in my memory.

But Mr. Maazel is an up-and-down guy – perhaps the ultimate up-anddown guy, among conductors – and, on Wednesday night, he laid an incredible egg.

The first movement was okay – graceful enough, with the right swellings. Mr. Maazel conducted thoughtfully, if not with divine inspiration.

The second movement – Andante con moto – was strained and stilted, not singing at all. Not moving either. It was very, very sleepy – not like a lullaby, but like zzzz …

Readers may remember that, a week and a half ago, I reviewed a Philharmonic performance of the “Unfinished,” conducted by Christoph von Dohnanyi. The second movement of that symphony is marked “Andante con moto” (“moto” meaning “motion”). So sluggish and flaccid was this performance, I joked that Mr. Dohnanyi had “lost his moto.”

I hate to repeat myself, but …

The opening of the third movement of the Fifth – the Menuetto – brought some incisiveness, some life, although the horn fumbled badly.The Trio of this movement, however, was just as strained and stilted as the Andante without moto. And the fourth movement, like the first, was okay – but still a bit lethargic, without sparkle.

Another member of the audience referred to this performance of the wonderful Fifth as “geriatric” – an unkind remark, but apt.

The program continued with Schonberg’s masterpiece of dodecaphony, the Variations for Orchestra, Op. 31. Mr. Maazel has been on something of a variations kick: The last time he conducted his orchestra, he performed Brahms’s “Haydn” Variations and Elliott Carter’s Variations for Orchestra.

In the case of the Schonberg, it was brain meets brain: Schonberg is one of our brainiest composers; Lorin Maazel is one of our brainiest conductors. And, indeed, he conducted the Variations logically and easily.

And there was considerable beauty in this performance – those who leave out beauty in Schonberg leave out a key ingredient. The sighing in the cellos was almost heavenly. Of course, any cello section led by Carter Brey and Hai-Ye Ni will sound good. And the Philharmonic’s principal flute, Robert Langevin, was pearl-like.

After intermission, we had a Rachmaninoff work for piano and orchestra – not one of the four concertos, but the Rhapsody on a Theme by Paganini. (And you know what that theme is: that A-minor caprice.) The soloist was Gabriela Montero, a Venezuelan who is something of a protegee of Martha Argerich (the Argentinian pianist). Ms. Montero was making her New York Philharmonic debut, and a most impressive debut it was.

You could tell there was something good about her when she played her opening octaves: solidly, confidently, into the keys. In fact, everything about this pianist would prove confident. She played with extraordinary rhythmic assurance, and other assurance. Her musicality could be seen in her phrasing (natural and shrewd). She played with a combination of solidity and fluidity – an exceptional combination to have. And her technique? So assured as to be demonic.

You might ask how the 18th Variation went – that beautiful, gratifying D-flat-major thing in the middle of the Rhapsody. It wasn’t great. One reason is that the preceding variation had been much, much too slow and stilted – so the 18th Variation wasn’t the oasis it can be. And, in that famous variation itself, Ms. Montero would have been better off with straighter rhythm.

Rachmaninoff himself – as pianist – is our guide here.

Throughout the Rhapsody, the orchestra did not help Ms. Montero much.Mr. Maazel and she were frequently not together. And much solo playing in the brass and winds was very,very rough.

And you know the ending, one of the slyest in music? Not together – Mr. Maazel, the New York Philharmonic, and Ms. Montero can do better (and perhaps they already have).

The program ended with Ravel’s dizzying statement on Vienna’s favorite dance, “La Valse.” Mr. Maazel is an excellent “French” conductor – as in Debussy’s “Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun” – and an excellent “Viennese” conductor – as in, oh: Strauss’s “Rosenkavalier” Suite. He should eat “La Valse” up.

And he sort of did. He was not geriatric, showing off some of his podium dance moves. But he filled this piece with Maazelisms: slowings, speedings, holdings, stutterings. I’m sure that some thought he squeezed the charm out of “La Valse.” And you could say that Mr. Maazel’s interpretation was all wrong.

I, however, loved it.

The Philharmonic will repeat this program on March 24 at 2 p.m. and March 25 at 8 p.m. at Avery Fisher Hall (Lincoln Center, 212-875-5656).