The Oberlin Orchestra came out of its chambers to offer a quality performance on Tuesday. Finney Chapel hosted the ensemble’s second concert of the year.

First on the program was Ottorino Respighi’s Gli- uccelli (The Birds). At the podium was James Feddeck, a graduate conducting student who graduated from Oberlin last year with a B.M. in oboe and organ performance. So far this year, Feddeck has admirably handled his position as assistant to conductor Bridget-Michaele Reischl. The young maestro led the orchestra at once with confidence, dignity and expressivity.

In an interview, he conveyed a clear vision of the music. The piece consists of five sections, a prelude and four descriptive movements about a dove, a hen, a nightingale and a cuckoo respectively, but there is more to it than that.

“It is not a trip to the zoo,” Feddeck said. “Each movement is a story that the birds are simply a small part of. It’s rather like a fairy tale book. You have a collection of very fantastic stories and images and people and places.”

With a limited amount of rehearsal time, Feddeck was never able to express that idea to the performers, but there was certainly something about the incredible variety of moods and colors in the piece that pointed to what he was talking about. The music was at one moment elegant, the next lyrical and the next comical.

A master orchestrator, Respighi created these shifts effortlessly. The piece was, in fact, essentially an orchestrated retelling of themes from keyboard music by early composers such as Jean-Philippe Rameau and Bernadro Pasquini.

One strange bit of orchestration was the prominent introduction of a celesta in the fourth movement and the continued importance of the instrument throughout the movement and into the next. The sudden addition of such a distinctive instrument so late in the piece was disorienting.

The rest of the concert was conducted by Reischl, though she often had little to do during the second piece, Witold Lutoslawski’s Piano Concert. The work, featuring Nolan Pearson on the piano, had many sections with indeterminate rhythm where the performers were called on to repeat various patterns until the next section arrived, a device that made conducting unnecessary at times.

Pearson played well and demonstrated an excellent understanding of the piece. However, there were moments when Lutoslawski did not seem to be holding up his end of the deal. At times, the orchestra seemed to create a solid wall of sound on top of which the piano played short, sporadic figures. In these sections, it seemed like very little was going on. There was nothing for the audience to hold on to, and the whole piece suffered as a result.

Rounding off the program was Robert Schumann’s Symphony No. 4. Unlike the Respighi, the piece is famous for its dubious techniques. It provided a great contrast to the Lutoslawski, though, with its distinct, recurring themes that made the piece easy to follow.

Aside from a few balance problems, the orchestra gave a skilled, sensitive, enjoyable performance, drawing the successful evening to a close with a triumphant major chord.