Steve Schwartz wrote:

>I'd like to recommend the Hollywood String Quartet.  Rhythmically
>incredible, beautiful ensemble.  It's only possible disadvantage is
>that it's mono (but not "historic").

Why is the HSQ not historic Steve? 1950s does it for me.

>With absolutely no qualms about being called a pedant, I looked up both
>words in The dictionary (OED, of course).  "Historic" is distinguished from
>"historical" in the way John describes, although one meaning of "historic"
>is "historical." This leads to the conclusion that the distinction is one
>of style rather than meaning.

Hardly.  If you were to say "American composer Aaron Rabushka and
representatives from 32 other countries will travel to Geneva next month
for what will be an historical meeting of composers," you might be inclined
to think they were going to discuss music history rather than that the
meeting is without precedent.

John Dalmas
[log in to unmask]