So it makes sense whether one believes that "only music that makes money matters" or not.
(And I don't believe that at all)
However, there's a huge difference between self-labeling one's art in a way that obscures it from wide access (like labeling a music created today as 'Jazz') and actually re-producing previously successful art forms (e.g. 'Jazz') because of a fear of judgment or chasing of praise.
I think you're stuck with a particular definition of jazz, the one that's putting the proverbial pillow on it. If you define jazz as that stuff that had its moment in the past with Coltrane and Bird, etc, of course it's going to be boring and old hat. If you listen to Robert Glasper's Black Radio and understand it a contemporary expression of jazz as well as R&B, then it's easy to be amazed at how much jazz has evolved and enthralled with where it's going. Jazz has never been "pure" - it has always reached into different music genres in subtle and unexpected ways. It remains misunderstood for that reason.
Well, you, for one did. Your comment seems to imply that I thought jazz not selling also meant that jazz doesn't matter.
>What were you intending to convey with your factual observation?
Just what I said, nothing more, nothing less: that today jazz doesn't sell.
