We can't have it both ways! We can't acknowledge that the arts reflect the times and then judge the quality of the art according to what it is reflecting, instead of, simply, how well it reflects it or not; wether we like what it is reflecting or not. These are two entirely different things. There will always be good jazz, just like there will always be good art in any genre.
****The early days of many genres were dominated and substained and nutured by players that formed a community, or culture. They knew each other and played together and many socialized together. They created a 'world' or 'society' in which this great music was produced. This was a world or society within the larger society.****
That is exactly what is going on today. On what do you base the notion that it is not? Young jazz musicians are part of "collectives" on a level never seen before and very much form a community with very clear and serious creative goals. To think otherwise is to shortchange, not only these young players, but jazz itself which has always stood for pushing forward and evolving. These guys (and ladies) are not "into it for money and fame", and to say that making great art is less important to this younger generation of creative musicians is grossly inaccurate and unfair.
That we may each like jazz in a certain style more than another style is an entirely different matter. We keep coming back to this debate which ultimately proves to be pointless and very limiting. Yes, it is true that there is no substitute for actual real-world playing experience, but the learning done in school is producing a great number of young players with the kind of well-rounded understanding of the basics and a technical skill that never seen before. And, they don't want to play like the players before them, they want to find new voices. We might do well to listen to more of these players, they deserve our support.
Just one example; in support of a local group.
http://brooklynjazz.org/index.php
