Jazz listening: Is it about the music? Or is it about the sound?


The thread title says it all. I can listen to jazz recordings for hours on end but can scarcely name a dozen tunes.  My jazz collection is small but still growing.  Most recordings sound great.  On the other hand, I have a substantial rock, pop and country collection and like most of us, have a near encyclopedic knowledge of it.  Yet sound quality is all over the map to the point that many titles have become nearly unlistenable on my best system.  Which leads me back to my question: Is it the sound or the music?  Maybe it’s both. You’ve just got to have one or the other!
jdmccall56
Simple...

It should first be all about the music and if it's to your taste/pleasure...

Then look for a better recording and/or performance.

Duh?

DeKay
You can't listen to poorly recorded jazz, you can well-recorded jazz. I tried many times and failed, I can't listen to jazz at all any more. But Like Bill I used to be able to. Those guys are in the endless search of the right notes. Some jazzrock is another matter, even if sound quality leaves a lot to be desired. Mahavishnu Orchestra is the very best.
If it’s not about the music. You don’t actually appreciate jazz. Stick to Kenny G
Post removed 
@whart , You forgot Ornette Colman! You might also like Henry Threadgill, another genius. Try to fine, "Just the Facts and Pass the Bucket." "Too Much Sugar for a Dime," is also a great record. His recent stuff is morphing into neoclassical. In Just the Facts there is this female celloist who pulls off this amazing solo. 

Anton99, You listen to jazz and classical alone because most people won't listen to it. My wife will tolerate old Trane and Davis records or the like. I put on "The Art Ensemble of Chicago" and she will puke. She will listen to the Professors solo stuff.