The French woman who taught American musicians

Second to the works by George Gerschwin, the second movement of his string quartet by Samuel Barber is arguably the most famous piece of all American classical music.
 

This simple fact by itself is rather unexpected since chamber music and string quartets in particular aren't noticeably popular among people without musical education or training. And yet, this work by S. Barber has acquired an extraordinary status in the U.S.A and beyond where it has become some sort of official music for remembrance and commemorations.

This is an opportunity to remember that string quartets as a genre has been widely practised by American musicians from Charles Ives, the first one to achieve fame, to Kenneth Fuchs, including Elliott Carter or John Cage and Philip Glass, the most prolific of them all being Milton Adolphus who wrote no less than 35 string quartets!

Samuel Barber's adagio may be one of the most famous pieces of American classical music yet Barber's a much less known figure than Leonard Bernstein who probably is the icon of American music.

Although Bernstein didn't write any string quartet, like some 600 American musicians he was a student of Nadia Boulanger, a French composer and teacher who was a key figure of Western music in the XXth, training conductors like Igor Markevich or Daniel Baremboïm and musicians like Burt Bacharach and George Antheil! Here is an extensive list of the musicians, most of them Americans, Nadia Boulanger taught to.

Isn’t it worth noticing that while America owes nothing to Europe re Jazz which is the epitome of the American musical uniqueness, a large part of her classical education was made in France by this revered French woman who Aaron Copland describes in these terms:

This intellectual Amazon is not only professor at the Conservatoire, is not only familiar with all music from Bach to Stravinsky, but is prepared for anything worse in the way of dissonance. But make no mistake... A more charming womanly woman never lived.

How did America get involved?

Just a couple of weeks ago, few Americans (or Canadians for that matter) could imagine their nation would again be in a warlike situation in another Arab country. 

And yet they should have known better...

Like everywhere else, there is an American embassy in Paris whose job it is to represent the USA in France as it is to report to Washington what's going on in this European country. And since both Craig R. Stapleton and Charles Rivkin are qualified professionals, the American administration knows far more about the French political scene and its actors than most of the French themselves. Notwithstanding the American secret services...

So when it comes to the current president of the French Republic they perfectly know how unpredictable, unreliable and irresponsible the man is.

Yet it seems they didn't see it coming: Sarkozy has succeeded in dragging the US of A in Libya which wasn't particularly on the radar screen of America afaik.

How did that happen? 

According to the media (whose reliability is 100% documented) B.H.L persuaded the French President to intervene in Libya so that the rebels who emerged from the upheaval east of Libya wouldn't be massacred by Gaddafi's army. This is when Sarkozy knew he had an opportunity to make a political coup!

Now, whatever how they're called, there are Chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff in each and every country and it is impossible that the French and the British ones (and the generals) didn't warn Sarkozy and Cameron that the French and British aviations couldn't conduct alone the mission they were assigned.

These top brasses knew the American assistance was indispensable and once again it is impossible that the French -and the Brits particularly- didn't exchange with their American counterparts before the strikes were launched. 

Of course Sarkozy was aware of this state of affair but, true to himself, he put the American administration in a quandary not totally unrelated to blackmail: You have no choice but to help us ("Either you're with us or you're against us" anyone?).

Did Sarkozy think of ousting Gaddafi in the first place under the pretence of protecting civilians? For what I now, this line has been used by the State department in order to justify an American participation to the Libyan operations.

Reluctant as it seems it was from the beginning, it looks like the US saw in the Franco-British initiative an opportunity to settle old scores with Gaddafi (La Belle, Lockerbie) which may be the reason why it eventually jumped in the bandwagon.

When asked about an involvement in Libya Obama answered: Days, not weeks! So when the time came for America to withdraw from this thorny affair there was no other option but to handle to NATO the leadership of this intervention. Sarkozy who wanted to be seen as the spearhead of this little war of his own first opposed the move to NATO but finally had to back down and retreat.

Sarkozy eventually was outplayed by the Americans because children shouldn't be left alone playing with matches.

Now the times for the mission creep concept has arrived and I have serious doubts Sarkozy ever foresaw there will be one. This is Sarkozy at his best: 1: shoot, 2: aim, 3: think...