Everyone else is analyzing what happened so I thought I’d add my two cents for what it’s worth. Let’s first sum up. The Democratic primary voters have shown a preference for an innocuous, bland, no new ideas, oatmeal candidate who they feel is the most likely to defeat Trump rather than an insurgent candidate who they feel will alienate too many voters to oust Trump.  Barring some miracle it is now essential a two man (man used intentionally) race. I did not support either of the finalists, but I would vote for either in November. Both have shown weaknesses and strengths. Simplistically speaking Bernie has the support of the younger primary voter while as voters get older Biden moves in front. Those who want major change (Medicare for all, the Green New Deal, college for all)  support Bernie, while those whose primary concern is a safe candidate with (they assume) the best chance to defeat the Republicans at the top and down the ticket support Biden. African Americans support Biden while Latino and Asian Americans support Sanders by and large. Neither Bloomberg nor Warren have much chance of catching these front-runners before the convention. I want to emphasize that primary voting is different from general election voting. Even in areas where primary turnout was high, many more people vote in the general election than vote in primaries. Trends that hold in the primaries may not in the general election.

What to make of this situation? If neither Bernie nor Uncle Joe have enough delegates to win by the convention we will have what’s called a brokered convention where each candidate is wheeling and dealing for the delegates that will put them over the top. Warren is staying in the race so she can be a factor in a brokered convention. Bloomberg has become tired of spending his money in a lost cause and threw his support to Biden. Each would expect to get something for the support. If nobody wins on the first ballot then the super-delegates (elected and establishment Democrats) can vote and Bernie is toast. If Biden were in the lead at that point the establishment could claim that they were just confirming the “will of the people.” If Sanders were in the lead they would clearly be overturning the “will of the people.” The Dems have done this before in 1968 when the establishment chose Hubert Humphrey as their candidate while the insurgent candidate (McCarthy) had the most delegates at that point. They went on to lose the election to Richard Nixon. If Biden is the candidate there will be two questions 1) Will progressives especially the “Bernie bro’s” vote for him? 2) Will a Biden campaign “inspire” the turnout necessary to defeat Trump. If Sanders is the candidate the questions are the same but reversed, 1) Will the centrists support Bernie? 2) Will enough of Bernie’s youth brigade turn out to overcome the fear and lack of fervor that the centrist have about his candidacy?

Now I am not a prognosticator and many things can change between now and the convention. Biden or Sanders might reach out to the opposite “wing” of the party for a vice presidential candidate that may bring enough of those outcast by the nomination into the general election. Either might content himself with influence over the party platform and this consolation prize might be enough to convince at least some of his followers to support the other candidate. In any event unity is going to be the holy grail for the Democrats and will be hard to come by. One must contemplate what a second term for Trump would bring before making one’s decision. Those with privileged enough circumstances to ride out even a second Trump term must decide whether their cynicism, anger and disappointment at the rigged Democratic candidate selection process, the delay of the “revolution,” and the Democratic establishment, outweighs more Trump. Those without this privilege must turn out in droves to vote because their lives and those of people they love depend on it.

There is an African American narrative tradition in which a story begins “Now what happened was….” Once you hear this you know you are about to hear a long, convoluted tale that tells the story from the perspective of the storyteller and which only occasionally (and possibly never) has a connection to what actually happened. Here is a hilarious example of this storytelling tradition by Tiffany Hadish. The clip itself is about 8 minutes long but is so funny the time just flies by, however if you can sample just a minute or two you will understand the narrative tradition.  Enough of the things happened to make you think that all did, but some things are elaborations, fabrications or commentary. Like a great jazz player an excellent storyteller employs all of these things in their craft. At its best these stories can tell you what is going on behind the surface of events; at their worst they are self serving rationalizations of one’s behavior. Ms. Hadish is an entrancing storyteller and demonstrates this tradition at its best.

I am reminded of this tradition every time I hear Donald Trump speak. I am trying to understand his appeal, particularly to people for whom his actions are not in their best interests. Unlike Hadish however he is not a great storyteller. He should start all his speeches with “Now what happened was…” and we should expect a disjointed, self serving, rationalization that has only the most tenuous connection to reality. Some media has called him out on his lies, that is, the fact that many of the events he mentions or the inferences he draws are not true. Right wing media like Fox News although they occasionally fact check, propagate his stories as if they represent a reality. The fact that most of his pronouncements are true or false is really beside the point to his followers. What matters is that he is spinning narratives they want to hear, telling stories they want to hear and to believe. Like a great jazz player it is not how well he sticks to the truth of the melody, but how well they perceive his elaborations, restatements, improvisations, and commentary on the truth (melody.) His statements about his “exoneration” by the Mueller report, the transcripts he released, or his acquittal in the Senate provide evidence of this phenomenon.  Although a careful reading of all these things shows that their is no “exoneration,” he boldly claims that they do. The truth of his exoneration doesn’t matter; it is how well his performance of it is received.

The problem for his supporters is that they can’t live in his dream world forever. Reality always comes to bite one in the ass. Just ask his supporters whether his term as president has made any material difference in their lives. For some it has. If you are a member of the top 1% it has increased your income or your wealth. If you own a business that was beset by government regulations passed to protect the public, Trump’s deregulation has helped. If you are a member of his family or inner circle your wealth has probably increased. However, if you are a member of the middle class or a blue-collar worker it probably hasn’t. Has he stopped the exportation of your job abroad? Has he raised wages enough so that you can make a decent living? Has he cleared out the “swamp” in Washington or just changed the names? Has his immigration crackdown or planned border wall materially improved your life? How many of the promises he made during his campaign have come to pass? All you have gotten is the “psychological wage of whiteness.”

Indeed, I could spin a whole narrative that puts his ascension in a new light. Now what happened was this con man who is neither as smart, as rich, as good a businessman nor as good a negotiator as he said he was, harnessed people for whom the system isn’t working well and rode them to victory for himself and his cronies. He keeps tell them how much he is set upon (a condition to which they can relate because that is how they feel too) and promising them that he is working on their behalf while fattening his own wallet from the government trough. And so on and so on…

Let us change the narrative come November.

I recently read a piece by Robert Reich the former Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration which you can look at it (here) In it while not discounting racism as one of the driving forces behind Trump’s supporter, also lists anti-establishmentism as an additional factor. I have long been interested in those voters who voted for Obama and then Trump, two people who would seem to have little in common, except they were perceived by the electorate as outside the establishment. While both have proven that they were not outsiders, both promised the electorate that they would be. As the first African American presidential candidate from a major political party, he promised to overturn the Citizens United Supreme Court decision and to get big money out of politics. Trump’s appeal was that he was so rich he didn’t need to rely on big money and would do things for the “little man.” Neither followed through on his promises, both allowed big money to make further inroads into politics, and both presided over a concentration of wealth unseen on the planet before them.

Reich argues “Democrats cannot defeat authoritarian populism without an agenda of radical democratic reform, an anti-establishment movement.” I agree with that. Unfortunately the Democrat National Committee does not. They still think that turning their back on those suffering economically to  pander to an imaginary “soccer mom” swing voter will defeat Trump. The DNC centrists are part of the system against whom the electorate is rebelling. To quote Reich “They also drank from the same campaign funding trough as the Republicans – big corporations, Wall Street and the very wealthy.” The DNC are refusing to support progressive candidates who challenge Democratic incumbents, they both publicly and privately disparage Sanders or Warren and other threats to “their” candidate Joe Biden, and Hilary even refuses to say if she will support the progressive candidates if they somehow win the primaries. Their accepted wisdom is that voters will not support candidates who are in their view “too radical” and only non-threatening, marshmallow candidates like Uncle Joe can prevail, when most polls indicate that either Sanders or Warren could defeat Trump, some predict even more handily than Biden. As Reich argues however, “There is no longer a left or right. There’s no longer a moderate “center”. There’s either Trump’s authoritarian populism or democratic – small “d” – populism.” I write this before the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries which will be the first, though not the last, test whether “democratic populism,” can appeal to voters more than the centrism which Biden represents.

I also want to comment on the support that Biden draws form the African American community which will play a huge role in the southern state primaries that happen after lily-white Iowa and New Hampshire. Biden leads handily among this group in the early polls, probably because of his proximity to Obama. Black folks perceive him as a known quantity on civil rights rather than Sanders or Warren. The truth is that before Obama, Biden opposed busing to mitigate segregation, played footsie with the most rabid southern racists like Strom Thurmond, and just went with the flow on most civil rights legislation. He was not an advocate for minorities and at times an opponent of actions on their behalf. Yet black folks see him as the devil they know rather than the unknowns that the other candidates are. Given America’s history of racism African Americans are hesitant to try out something new in political candidates because they know they have so much to lose. Both Sanders and Warren have much to do to make inroads among this group, but they are making some slow progress. What they have to avoid is pandering while showing that their plans to help the “little guy” with things like single payer medical insurance, will help the black community much more than the establish status quo that Biden represents. They have to become the modern day equivalents of FDR in order for African Americans to muster the levels of enthusiasm, support, and turnout that the Democrats need. African Americans understand that they need to vote in this election as if their lives depended on it, but it is up to the primary system to give them something to vote for.

Being stuck in the middle will not win this election. Both Sanders’ and Warren’s  big plans are flawed (and will be refined in the process of actually executing them,) but they represent a change in business as usual and a threat to the “Establishment.” As such I hope they will appeal to an electorate fed up with things as they are and bring about a different future.

In the movie Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, teacher Ben Stein in a bored monotone is taking attendance and utters the classic line “Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?” The camera cuts to Bueller’s empty chair. There is nothing there. Upon hearing Attorney General William Barrs’s summary of the the Mueller Report, many may have felt the same way. The Mueller report has finally been concluded and it matters and it doesn’t. As I thought there is nothing in it to show that Trump committed any crimes, does little to support impeachment, and leaves our best option at getting rid of Trump as the 2020 election. Attorney General Barr and the Republican Senate will protect him against any legal or political repercussions.  That doesn’t mean that the investigation has been a failure. It has led to many indictments, some criminals behind bars, and torn the veil off the corruption, arrogance and criminal activity of Trump’s inner circle. It shows conclusively that Russia wanted and worked towards the election of Trump and some in the Trump campaign were willing to listen to them. At the very least it makes one wonder why Russia was so anxious to have him elected that it played our electorate like a fiddle.

The real question is whether this will make any difference in the 2020 election. There are certainly die-hard Trump supporters for whom this will make no difference except perhaps to strengthen their support. They will argue that Mueller’s extensive investigation showed no actual collusion between Trump and Russia. There will be some people who supported Trump in 2016 who will have their support and trust shaken by the revelations. The 2018 elections show that these people exist in the withdrawal of support for him among white college educated women especially and in white suburbs overall. I doubt it will make much difference among his middle class and top 1% economically supporters. The middle class has too many other problems and worries to get into the intricacies and details of the report even if it is made public. For the 1% he is their “boy” and is pushing through the rollback of deregulation and the tax policies they want, so the report is irrelevant.

Although Trump’s economic policies have led to hardship among farmers, higher taxes for the middle class, and the loss of jobs in some industries, the economy as a whole is still doing well from the bump that Obama gave it and even those suffering may not link their troubles to Trump. The recession that will come from Trumponomics may or may not get here in time for the 2020 election though get here it will. The question I urge everyone to ask of any Trump supporters is “Has your life improved materially under Trump?” Narcissisticly  if it has improved things for them then they have a reason to continue to vote for him, but if it has not then they should consider whether they will continue to support him. Although few of his supporters will turn on him and not support him in 2020, it may be enough to unseat him.

The Mueller Report has given fuel to those who oppose Trump though not as much as they had hoped. Aside from the bad taste that people like Manafort has left us with, the shenanigans, smugness, and disdain for law that Trump’s inner circle has shown, strengthens the case the opposition has for the corruption of our democracy that Trump and his enablers have brought about. This is not to say that it wasn’t already there among Republicans and Democrats alike, but that it has shown itself in all its naked greed in the report. If it inspires more people to vote against Trump, more people to work at the grassroots for candidates, and more support of progressive policies, then the report will have done some good. If it helps bring about a Republican minority in the Senate as well as the House it will have moved us forward.

Those hoping that the Mueller Report would unseat Trump do not despair. The legal cases will continue at the state level and indictments and arrests are sure to follow. For example New York’s investigation of Trump entities will continue and the Mueller revelations are just the tip of the iceberg. We may yet see his “team” and family behind bars.

It has always struck me that Fox News openly shows so much disdain for the people who are the backbone of their success. A few weeks ago they tried to shame actor Geoffrey Owens formerly of the Cosby show for working at a supermarket in what they considered as a menial job. The narrative they tried to spin was that here was an African American actor who had fallen from grace, perhaps had been profligate with his actor earnings, and was now forced to work in this unglamorous job. Then there were the slurs on Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez first for being more middle class than a Latina from the Bronx and now for being unable to afford an apartment in Washington D.C. until she starts to receive her Congressional salary. The criticism here is that she wore expensive clothes at a photo shoot so she supposedly spends too much on clothes instead of rent. She has answered this criticism by showing that they weren’t her clothes but supplied and reclaimed by the people doing the photo shoot. Her purpose in being honest about not being able to afford a D.C. apartment was to demonstrate that the governmental system is not designed for working class people. To be clear the criticism is that both Owens and Ocasio-Cortez are being improvident, that is wasteful, spendthrift, not planning for the future, or of being deceitful in Ocasio-Cortez’s case. However look at the evidence Fox News and right wingers have provided that this is the case. Owens works in a working class job, Ocasio-Cortez lived in a middle class suburb not the ghetto of the Bronx, and Ocasio-Cortez cannot afford to live in the District of Columbia. Instead of spinning this positively as Owens is willing to work hard to support his family or Ocasion-Cortez’s mother worked hard to get a better environment and school system for her daughter, Fox News and the right wing are arguing that they should be ashamed of these things. They argue that people who do them are shameful in Owens case and deceitful in Ocasio-Cortez’s. Her admission that she cannot afford an apartment in D.C. is just proof that she is not the right sort of person to be a Congressional representative.

What does this say about the working class and middle class people that support Trump? Owens and Ocasio-Cortez are being criticized for the very things that the Trump supporters do: work hard at working class jobs, strive to make a better life for their children, and being unable to afford rent that is out of control. It is no coincidence that both of these people are people of color. These criticisms are hidden behind the racism that is part and parcel of both the new Republican Party’s message and appeal. The disdain for the working class and even middle class is camouflaged behind the dog whistle racism of the right wing media. In this case the racial divides trump (pun intentional) the class antagonisms here. Most of the Trumpettes cannot see that Owens and Ocasio-Cortez are like them and in putting them down Fox News is showing what they really think of them.

This appeal to racism and the stirring up of the white supremacy that is part of the American stew reflects the failure of the political system, both Democrats and Republicans, to work in the actual interests of the working classes. It also points to a way out of the current mess in which we find ourselves. Many people have underestimated the racism that is part of America and most activists have gone to their graves awaiting white America’s repudiation of white supremacy. Instead of waiting for enough whites to find brotherhood and to realize the racism of the acts they consider non racial, we need to try a new tactic. If there is one thing that trumps even racism it is self-interest. Many of those who have turned to racism have done so as compensation for the lack of goodies in their own lives. Some of them are of course too far gone and will not respond to anything we say or do. There are some who will respond to politicians who listen to them and do things that actually improve their lives. Neither the current Democratic nor Republican parties do that. Progressives need to show that they are not out of touch dreamers or dilettantes by working with those people in those rural areas rather than bemoaning the electoral college and senate system which gives them power. There will be no change in the electoral college unless there is a change in who controls the levers of power. Voters will get behind people, progressive or otherwise, who work for their interests not the self-interests of the politicians. Ocasio-Cortez has demonstrated that massive grassroots campaigning is the way to bring down the entrenched, powerful and ultimately selfish politicians who are the real villains of the system.

The task of planting a vegetable garden has now fallen to me. As a city boy I was not raised to grow my own food. I never wondered how produce made its way into the food distribution system. I knew only that it was available usually frozen, occasionally fresh, in the supermarket. My only experience with food in its natural state was when as a boy we used to sneak apples from a neighbor’s apple trees. The elderly woman who owned them caught us one day and made a deal with us. We could pick as many as we wanted as long as we gave a bucket of them to her. We youngsters thought this was quite a deal. My mother wasn’t so happy about it, but she dutifully canned apples, made apple sauce and baked apple pie for weeks afterwards.

Anyway, my wife was the gardener in the family. Although I helped with some of the heavy lifting, she was the one who chose what to plant in our little vegetable patch, did most of the watering and weeding, and generally was the cultivator. My task was mostly to eat the finished product either raw or in prepared dishes. This growing season I took on the task myself. My first foray was to buy some onion plants from a local nursery. My first lesson was that if you buy plants your task has just begun. You cannot wait a couple of weeks and plant them when you feel like it. You need to plant immediately otherwise they just die out. Lesson learned. My second purchase of onion plants went right into the ground the same day. I then decided that the taste of home grown tomatoes was so much better than the store bought kind, that I would try them next. With the help of my son those went in immediately and were watered consistently over the next few weeks. When we lived in California we knew a guy who was just getting into growing his own tomatoes. He made the mistake of thinking that each tomato plant produced only one tomato and so planted a lot of tomatoes. He eventually was introduced to the error of his ways. You see, you can’t reason with tomato plants. You can’t explain to them that you have enough tomatoes, thank them for their service, and expect them to stop producing. It doesn’t work like that. They have life within them begging to come out. You must have an end game. You cannot eat enough salads to keep up with them, so you need to find recipes for tomato sauce, learn how to can them, and to make tomato paste. I am in that stage now as the plants churn out tomatoes and I cannot give enough of them away to keep up. On the bright side one of my toddler granddaughter’s favorite activities with me is going out to pick ‘matoes.

I also planted some oregano and sweet peppers which will eventually be used in the tomato sauce. I even tried growing some cantaloupe at my son’s insistence. They only produced a few melons but it was an interesting experiment. As the growing season come to an end what have I learned? Next year I will try again putting this year’s lessons to use.  You have to plan carefully and devote much of your time to thinking this out. Fresh vegetables are delicious but you have to select the kind, planting timetable, and spacing well. My tomato plants took over the garden looking more like a jungle than a farm. They still produced abundantly but I want to put a little more order in their lives.

The larger lesson I have learned is that it is good to stop thinking of yourself occasionally and to put your attention elsewhere. Having a vegetable garden is like having a pet. You are responsible for other living things and not just yourself. You have to feed and water them on a regular schedule. You cannot just think of them now and then but almost every day. Also, they are not economically rational. For the money, time, and energy, it is more economic to go to the grocery store and let the professionals work for you. However there are benefits to gardening that go beyond this. There is mental challenge in the planning, peace in the mindless repetition of weeding and watering, and satisfaction in the harvest. That is why I will do it again next year only better.

My 2.5. year old granddaughter is learning language (two languages actually) and has just learned that what you say can get you what you want. She is also learning to lie. Oh she’s not good at it yet, but she has learned that denying you have pooped can get you continued play even when there is olfactory and visual evidence to the contrary. That got me thinking about the how young we learn that lying can get us what we want.  There are all kinds of lies: the bold faced lie when we say something we know to be untrue, the omission lie when we just omit to say something about something we know happened, the lie by exaggeration when we say things are more than we know them to be, the partial truth lie when we only tell part of the truth knowing that the rest weakens our case, and the mistaken lie when we say something we think is true but which later turns out to have been false. This list is by no means comprehensive, but it does give you some idea of the complexity of lying.

To not lie is also a learned behavior brought about by the negative consequences of lying, the adoption of a moral or ethical code that lying is wrong, or by the realization that the truth will come out sooner or later. If you do not suffer the consequences of lying, do not adopted a code that says lying is wrong, or learn that the truth often comes out so late that you have already gained something by lying when it does appear, then one does not learn not to lie. I have just been watching a detective show called “The Tunnel” (a very good show by the way) in which one of the detectives is on the Asperger’s spectrum and has not learned the social skills which encourage petty social lies to lubricate social interactions. She has to be taught by her detective partner and her detective supervisor how to do it. She awkwardly tries to do it when all her instincts are saying “tell the truth.” Hilarity ensues.  Recently I saw the play The Iceman Cometh on Broadway with a stunning cast including Denzel Washington. Its main point is that we all need the little lies we keep telling ourselves about how life is going to get better (when it really isn’t) in order to continue to exist. The moral of these two dramas therefore is that a little lying in the right circumstances can be a good thing.

The second point I want to make about lying derives from a point sociologist Erving Goffman made in a famous sociology book called The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. In it Goffman argues that the idea of self is really a gambit we present to others. If they accept it then that is our public self. However, others can reject it as well and if they do, our gambit has failed so we need to find a different “self” to try to present. Similarly with lying we present it to others and if it is accepted by the others it becomes the truth no matter how temporary. If we reject it for example, but the odor does not support my granddaughter’s claim that she has not pooped, then we know it is a lie and take appropriate action. In other words a lie’s acceptance or rejection depends on the presence of evidence to the contrary and the acceptance or rejection of that evidence.

All of this brings us to our current president. Early in his life Donald Trump must have discovered the same thing as my granddaughter: lying can get you what you want. He is the consummate liar whose lies as president number in the thousands. He has uttered all the different types of lies for example bold faced lies, lying by omission, mistaken lies and too many types to keep track. This brings up two questions to me: a) Are his lies of the white lie variety and just necessary for social interaction? and b) Is there evidence to suggest that we accept his lies or is there evidence to reject them? As to the first we must begin by admitting that all presidents lie, at least by omission. There are state secrets that they know but choose not to tell the public. Beyond this there are certainly exaggerations or untrue things that presidents say for rhetorical reasons that count as lies. Trump has however gone way beyond this. He has said things he knows to be untrue, repeated untruths he has heard on Fox News without checking them, and told lies to disparage those who disagree with him or bolster his own self confidence. He clearly rejects all evidence that contradicts him and when pressed just makes shit up. The question is whether we should accept or reject his lies. Many of his supporters accept them as truth and reject evidence to the contrary. Some recognize that he has lied, but simply ignore or rationalize it. Others accept the evidence (usually provided by a free press and called fake news by Trump) and do not want a president who behaves this way and treats his supporters this way. Each of us needs to decide which group we belong to. As for my granddaughter I think I will try to instill in her the ethical code of truth telling even though it may hurt her future presidential chances.

Dee Dee Bridgewater

Displaying more energy and a better voice than people half her age, Ms. Bridgewater brought the house down with her set. An accomplished jazz singer, Grammy winner and NEH Jazz Master, she has taken a self described “detour” into the Memphis soul music of her teenage years. Lucky us. She has released a new album called “Yes I’m Ready” and performed some of the album’s songs for her set. They ranged from an obscure Gladys Knight song to Elvis and B.B. King with stops in Memphis Stax-Volt along the way. Although in her sixties her voices is undiminished in power, trueness and delivery. Her jazz sensibilities enhance these songs as when Carla Thomas’ B.A.B.Y. becomes a scat song that ends up in church. She doesn’t simply cover these songs but transform them as with Elvis’ “Don’t Be Cruel.” She is a graduate of the same school of movement as Tina Turner and bantered with each of her band-mates as well as giving them time to solo. Her scat solos where a band-mate would imitate or respond to her is an old jazz practice put to great effect here. She had the normally restrained Montreal Jazz Festival audience dancing in their seats to B.B. King’s “The Thrill is Gone.” She transformed that song from a lament to a rollicking woman’s dismissal of her lover. As she was about to start her encore someone in the audience shouted out “Slow Boat to China,”which is on one of her earlier albums. She obliged and sang a verse for her. She then launched into her encore which isn’t part of the album, Prince’s “Purple Rain.” She had the entire audience singing the refrain along with her and waving their cell phone lights in the air. This is stuff more at home in a rock concert than a jazz one, but on this special occasion it worked.

Jenson Sisters Quintet

The Upstairs Jazz Bar and Grill is a really small intimate venue with a tiny performance space. In its quirky way it is actually downstairs in the basement of an old brownstone. It reminded me of the Village Vanguard in NYC but much smaller. The quintet was a tight unit and everyone had their moments, but the stars were Helen Sung’s piano and Ingrid Jenson’s trumpet again. They are the most creative, inventive and technically gifted players I’ve seen the past two days. Their compositions are excellent too. Playing mostly originals with  the important exception of Thelonious Monks “In Walked Bud,” the set ranged from mellow to spiky. The bassist, drummer, and saxophonist (sister Christine Jenson) had interesting moments and solos, but fewer shining moments. The might belonged to Ingrid and Helen though. Helen’s composition “Convergence” in which many disparate elements clashed in challenging ways and Ingrid’s composition “Landed” based on Pete Seeger’s This Land is Your Land,” were the highlights for me. Christine Jenson also contributed some interesting compositions. However, Ingrid is one of the best trumpeters I’ve heard since Freddie Hubbard and Helen is in the stratosphere of pianists in her generation. All in all a very fun evening.

Rene Rosnes

Before she performed Ms. Rosnes received the Oscar Peterson award for Canadians who have made great contributions to jazz. She then proceeded to demonstrate why she deserved it. With a super group of A list sidemen (Lenny White on drums, Robert Hurst on bass and Steve Nelson o9n vibes) she had the best “band” I saw in the entire festival. Their interaction was magical and telepathic. Each responded to mimicked, commented on, and supported the others; it was a true symbiosis. Rene’s solos were the intricate pieces we have come to expect from her: building and releasing the tension, pushing the harmonic boundaries and challenging the listener in ways great and small. It was a marvelous set.

Dave Holland, Zahir Husein, Chris Potter

I saw one blurb which named this as Dave Hollands foray into world music. This is totally wrong. It was the continuation of Zahir’s movement into jazz. For the most part Holland and Porter played straight ahead modern jazz. It was Zahir’s contributions on percussion that were the hit of the show. Often Holland would look at him and broadly smile, not out of surprise, but out of wonder. Zahir brought Indian percussion into jazz the way Airto Moreira brought into jazz decades ago. His non-stop playing (what stamina) went with, led the way or complemented everything Holland and Porter were doing.. I have long marveled at Dave Holland’s ability to lead from the bass chair. Mingus did it through his compositions and the force of his personality. Holland does it through his playing by laying the foundation of a piece and in this trio setting, through his intricate solos. Potter’s solos push the mainstream envelope into new territory whether on tenor or soprano sax. He is simply one of the best players of his generation. Still, it was Zahir one came away remembering. His playing simply makes jazz the world music it has always been.

In the next couple of blog entries I am going to write about what for me were the highlights of the Montreal Jazz Festival I attended.

John Medeski/Marc Ribot trio.

Medeski and Ribot are matched well. They both can move from deep in the pocket to way outside in a New York minute. Communication between them was instant, as one picked up what the other was doing to repeat it, elaborate on it, or respond to it.  This despite the fact that they sometimes had to rely on hand signals and nods to indicate they were handing off the soloing duties to the other. A finger circling in the air meant keep going for another chorus.. They are both great players; Ribot can play that there guitar and Medeski is simply a monster on B-3 organ. In fact he is the Godzilla of modern organists, so offhandedly and confidently his unique, bad self that he is frightening. Collectively they breathed new life into the organ trio format. Judging by how many audience heads were bobbing, feet were tapping and booties were swaying, they proved that they can think outside the box while bring the box along with them.

Cecile McLorin Savant

A fluent French as well as English speaker she introduced songs in French and even sang a couple in French. At times she reminded me of Bettyy Carter, at times of Sarah Vaughn with her wide vocal range, and at times she was utterly unique. She sang that old chestnut “Wives and Lovers” absolutely straight. It was advice to 50’s wives to continue to woo their husbands even after marriage. Anyone who has seen “The Fabulous Mrs. Maisel,” could ask, “How did that work out for you?” While the song itself may or may not be tongue in cheek, her presentation of it after the more modern feminist ditties that preceded it, certainly was. The highlight of the set for me didn’t come until the end. Coming back on stage alone for an encore, she stood center stage and delivered an a cappella version of a “roots” song about a naive young woman whose lover killed her when she became pregnant, singing from the perspective of the dead woman. This was absolutely stunning. She should do more of this kind of stuff.

Keyon Harrold

A young brother from Ferguson, Missouri who dubbed all the trumpet parts for Don Cheadle’s Miles Davis biopic “Miles Ahead.” Not surprisingly he makes the mixture of jazz trumpet and work better than anyone I’ve heard since er, Miles Davis. It was a blazing set with an excellent group of musicians especially the keyboardist and guitarist. His political roots are on full display. As a kid he used to buy candy at the bodega near which the unarmed Michael Brow was murdered by the police adding fuel to the Black Live Matter movement and the protests about police misconduct. His live set was on fire. I listened to his new cd which contained many of the same songs as his live set. As is often the case the cd, though it has its charms, couldn’t hold a candle to the live performance. The performance sprinkled in long quotes from “Lift Every Voice and Sing (the Negro National Anthem) and “We shall Overcome,” to underline its political and anti-racist messages. Impressive as the politics was, it was the hard rocking jazz-rock that stays with me. This is what is missing form te recording. If you have a chance to go see this young man live, do yourself a favor and do it.

Montreal National Jazz Orchestra

This was supposed to be conducted by Carla Bley and play some of her music, but illness prevented her from coming. Christine Jenson (of the Jenson sisters band filled in (more on them later.) They played the music of Carla Bley, but it wasn’t quite the same. Oh, the music had some of the same quirkiness, unusual harmonies, and underlying melancholy typical of Bley. However I was looking forward to seeing the 80 year old master herself. Maybe I am getting jaded in my old age, but the orchestra left me cold. They were all good musicians and technically good at their craft, but with one or two exceptions, the solos seemed to me perfunctory. This changed when emergency guest artists Helen sung (piano) and Ingrid Jenson (trumpet) joined the orchestra for a couple of songs. They demonstrated the inventiveness, the pushing of the envelope that had been missing and is the core of Bley. They clarified for me what had been lacking.