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

It should always be about the music. If you want great sound too attend a live performance it’s a lot cheaper than a system that will give an approximation. Then again I think there are lots of people in this hobby who are more sound lovers than music lovers 
I am reminded of one individual who was bragging to myself that his exceptional and expensive system was so good you could actually hear the subway passing by under symphony hall on one recording of the BSO
to which I replied “yah but who would want to”

@jyprez- this "thing of ours" is very gear-centric and about sound. Ideally, it should be in service of the music, but I know there were times that I got caught in the web of listening for sonic spectacularity, it's a trap in some ways if one confines their listening to stuff that sounds "good" on their system. I used to have "demo" records that would show off my system. I hit a point where I was tired of that kind of listening and just started to explore music as an adventure. I can read and play (my chops are hardly what they were) but somehow, after years of classical and a love of early hard rock (I'm a big fan of what I'd call biker bar stuff, the heavier the better, kind of early post psych), I've settled into this soul-jazz groove that is very rich with talent and recordings, and satisfies me musically. I actually managed to avoid hearing "Dreaming with Dean" (or whatever it is called) for a few years until I got caught out during a visit to someone's place-- -very exotic system and when he cued that record, along with other audiophile warhorses-- listening for something that had gone astray in the system, I immediately recognized it, ending my run of Dean-free music. :)
In my view, listen to whatever you want, for whatever reason --- who am I to dictate listening choices? I just hit a wall of same old at some point and wanted out of the audiophile "approved" box- the stuff that gets continually reissued because it sells.  

I listen to a lot of jazz, especially swing, bebop and hard bop. Because many of these recordings were made in the 40’s-50’s, in medium quality studios, the sonic quality is “ok”, but not something you’d listen to because of the sound quality. For example I was listening to Miles Davis’ “Sketches of Spain” a few days ago on vinyl, and was thinking “wonderful music, what an awful recording”. But it’s kind of all over the place. Most Monk stuff is not well recorded, but most Ahmad Jamal is. 

I remember jazz mainly by album. There are so many combos of this guy playing with that guy or that quartet or quintet. I like the classic bebop or hard bop more that the fusion/funk/modern whatever you want to call it. Although there are some that defy categorization.

I almost never listen to an album just because it sounds good or is renowned. If I don't like it (A Love Supreme for example or Birth of the Cool) I don't like it. Sorry. Not into big bands. But I am not a fan of just one instrument being played.

Of course there are songs whose titles stand out on my favorite jazz albums but not nearly like rock and pop stuff. 

I am the opposite, but learned about rock from my XM radio display.  Yes, I know, you have better sources.  So do I, but the jazz selection is awesome, and the info, especially for jazz, is educational.  The Polk costs about $50.00 on eBay, and service is $60 for the first year.