This integral published in 1975 has great qualities: accuracy and precision, strong contrast, architecture development, pressure and rebound. This fits well with the taste of the time for objectivity, but here the success is total. One could say, if it holds, the Wiener Konzerthaus Quartett (integral of the early 50's) and even in the Amadeus quartet they had recorded over this Viennese charm, so useful especially in the early quartets and environment, as Busch had a fatal genius. Can we say, using the symbolic elements, as water, if present in the personality of the composer, is a bit dried up? We objected that the sovereign clarity of Melos night nocturnal mystery of Schubert? Matter of taste, but the advantage of this transparent and rigorous design is that if you listen really can find all aspects of the works, although some appear there more obviously than others, and all the details. In its choices, which are also not too choose instead of the listener, this integral is infallible.
The sound is well suited to dry the will of accuracy interpreters. Better than other more modern, it keeps track of each musician, it avoids treating together as a whole indistinct, which is particularly detrimental to the chamber music. Of course, there is a drawback. She emphasizes the austerity of an interpretation already little charmer, she gives her something bone. It realizes this particular indulgence with no material, which does not round. You have the right to love something more fulfilled, looks like an advertisement (which intelligently uses the Radetzky March ...), but I'm thrilled, although I also listen to other artists.
There are many interpretations of the most famous quartets, especially the last four, but relatively few of integrals. Nevertheless, I can not say whether this is the best, for lack of documentation. I listened to several elements of that of Auryn and tranquility reduces the perception of contrasts and architecture, so I prefer the Melos.
