John Dalmas replies 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.

Let's see if I can explain this again.  I was not referring to the
performance, but to the SOUND of the recording -- ie, a reasonably
full frequency response, few snaps, crackles, and pops, etc.

>...  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.  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.  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.

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

Steve Schwartz