Landau and Lifshitz are also great, but too much wave-mechanics oriented for my taste. The traditional way of teaching quantum mechanics in terms of wave mechanics seems to leave the impression in students that quantum mechanics is mostly about energy-eigenvalue problems (time-independent Schrödinger equations), and the dynamical aspects are not fully understood.
I like Ballentine for exactly the reason, for which atyy dislikes it. This only shows once more that the question of interpretation is not an objective part of the theory but very much due to the taste of each individual physicist, and you even can't decide, who's "right" or "wrong" on it, because everybody agrees on the predictions about observable phenomena, which is the only thing that really counts in physics, but I prefer the most simple interpretation (ensemble/minimal statistical) compared to interpretations that have additional elements, which are not really necessary but lead to large intrinsic (consistency) problems (like most flavors of Copenhagen with a collapse, with the exception of Bohr and his followers, who have an epistemic view on the quantum state) or add unobservable esoterics like Bohmian trajectories or Everet's parallel universes.
This shows that there are many philosophical problems, which I personally find very interesting, and I like to discuss them (not the leas in this forum :-)), but which on the other hand are (fortunately) not of much relevance for physics (let alone applied physics). E.g., it didn't matter much, which personal interpretation Shockley, Bardeen, and Brattain used when inventing the transistor ;-)).
