Steve Schwartz replies to me:

>>...  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.
>
>You might, but would you? I wouldn't say either "historical" or "historic"
>in that context, simply because it's ambiguous and depends almost entirely
>on context, rather than on dictionary meaning.

But, of course, there was an assumption my statement was meant to be
taken "as is." Ambiguity exists because in order to make the point, I
deliberately used the incorrect modifier "historical." The astute reader
would see immediately that "historic" was the intended meaning.

>I might refer to "historic" (with your distinction) an event on the level
>of the Yalta Conference.  Most artistic convocations don't merit that
>designation.

Agreed.

>On the other hand, I wouldn't call it "historical" either, because
>"historical" in your distinction (ie, belonging to history) doesn't
>really add anything useful to the context at all.  It's advertising cant.

See above.

>If the conference were on music history, I would say "a conference on
>music history" or "a music-history conference." Wouldn't you?

Absolutely.

John Dalmas
[log in to unmask]