An interesting inclusion in this new DG set is the only currently available version of Beethoven's transcription of his Op. 14 No. 1 Piano Sonata. But it can be said immediately that this need not figure prominently in anyone's calculations. The transcription is at its most interesting in the central sections of the outer movements where Beethoven is forced to rework the texture quite radically, and it is here that the strenghts of the Melos—clarity of passagework, exemplary ensemble and balance—are most telling. Otherwise the merits of the piece are modest, those of the performance even more so.
In the Rasumovsky Quartets they measure up well to the far greater demands on technique and concentration and are undaunted by the sheer scale of Beethoven's conception. They are at their finest, I feel, in the finale of Op. 59 No. 3, taken at a cracking pace and with forceful vigour (this movement is one of the few slight disappointments in the Lindsay Quartet's ASV set). But I have a nagging suspicion that such technical overkill is virtually the only means they have of stamping individuality on their readings. Without a sense of strain or dramatic ebb and flow the Melos seem to gloss over much of the music's psychological motivation, and it is precisely the feeling that they have never been daunted, or even awed, by these masterpieces, that makes their approach seem two-dimensional.
Comparing the versions listed above it is evident that the Melos and the Alban Berg take a broadly similar approach. Their fast movements are well drilled and (on the whole) scrupulously attentive to Beethoven's marking (though not always aware of the nuances of tone and timing needed to make sense of them). Where speed seems excessive (as in the first Rasumovsky's opening movement) this may be because they are attempting to follow Beethoven's metronome marks, with a resulting orchestral momentum that is interesting if not convincing. In slow movements the Alban Berg are easier to take—their first violin has a less tacky sound quality and the Melos tend to indulge in superficially expressive but ultimately destructive changes of tempo (particularly in Op. 59 No. 2 and Op. 74). Both ensembles sound literal-minded and unimaginative compared to the Vegh and Lindsay Quartets, who seem to take their cue from Beethoven's reported remark that ''Music is a higher revelation than all philosophy.
I began detailed comparative listening with Op. 59 No. 1, unaware that RL had described the Lindsays' performance as ''the most consistently illuminating and inspired account . . . at present on record''. Indeed, it is something of a classic, with an astonishing and profoundly moving account of the slow movement and unerring understanding of Beethoven's visionary flights. In fact it is the Lindsays who consistently display the widest range of tone-colour, accent, rhythmic nuance and polyphonic interplay. Their understanding of 'where they are' tonally (and why, psychologically) is remarkable, surpassing even the warmly humane Vegh (whose recorded sound on Valois now seems distinctly tubby). Honours are more even in the Second and Third Rasumovskys, though I find it disturbing that the Alban Berg can make the Molto adagio of the former sound so Mozartian and the Scherzo so Mendelssohnian, and surprising that they should choose to omit the first movement repeat in Op. 59 No. 3. However, their Op. 95 is superbly propulsive and vehement, without the coarseness which creeps into the Lindsay's reading or the exaggerated breadth of their first movement triplet theme.
The clean attack and all-round technical excellence of the German and Austrian ensembles is of course ideally suited to CD, though I do wish the EMI set gave separate tracks for attacca finales, and the total absence of background is unnerving when movements start from nowhere, with no aural equivalent to the visual cue of the players addressing their instruments. The Melos's acoustic on DG is slightly drier, but not unpleasantly so.
With regard to CD, I would concur with RL's remark: ''personally I would be inclined to wait for the Lindsays to appear as they surely must''. I do wonder, though, whether anything can be done to tame the over-resonant acoustic on their record of Op. 74 and Op. 95, and whether a different take exists for the third movement of the latter to eliminate the bad mistuning at bar 144. The appearance of the Melos set, admirably played though it is, does not challenge the others for supremacy.'