John Dalmas replies to Deryk Barker and to me:

>>>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.
>
>Wouldn't that make the recording "historical" rather than "historic"?
>
>A "historic" recording is one of some special importance, such as one
>of Elgar or Strauss conducting their own works, one commemorating an
>event (Bernstein and the Berlin Wall), or a recording many regard as
>having broken new ground or risen to new heights (the EMI Callas "Tosca").
>A "historical" recording is any recording at all from the distant past,
>whether regarded as important or not.

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.

However, just to set the record straight, Deryk and I were not talking
about "historic" recordings, but of the *sound* of older recordings --
the sound, for example, of heavily-weathered Gallagher and Shean 78s.

Steve Schwartz