[ap22213]

I think you guys are missing my point, which is my fault. Making art for the money should never be a primary goal, unless one's goal is the emphasis and irony of that relationship (see: Koons). Otherwise, how can it really be art? It's been constrained and affected by the expected effect.

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.

[jdietrich]

Jazz has always been a progressive, innovative musical form. If you understand jazz to be static and backwards-facing, then you have been sadly misled. Jazz has a tradition, but that tradition is a starting point rather than a destination. Jazz musicians stand on the shoulders of giants, not in their shadows.

[leothekim]

You can make art for the sole purpose of money. Lots of writers and musicians churn out pulp and jingles to keep the pool heated. And some of that stuff is really good art.

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.