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
I have found Jazz to be one of the tougher music genres to reproduce via an audio system. The tone quality of instruments is important with the right balance of smoothness and attack (but without artificial sibilance to the leading edge of notes). But also important is timing and the flow of the music. Systems that lean to much to the side of smoothness (generally tube amps) can sound too slow for jazz. On the other side, solid state amplification that is too focused on resolution can make the tone quality of acoustic instruments sound harsh. My experience is that good equipment for listening to jazz doesn't have to be super expensive, but finding the right blend of equipment to get the right sound personality for your preferences matters. For instance, the quickness of my pretty reasonably priced Monitor Audio Silver 300 speakers seems to allow a lot of leeway for sweeter sounding amplification which will likely be my next purchase (after working on my digital front end.

For me it is all about the music, but how that music is reproduced matters as well. Listening to 'Kind of Blue' right now and it's hitting the spot for me this morning...
I think it depends on the material you're listening to. There are some recordings that have historic significance because of the lineup, the style of jazz, the performance of a particular player or the interplay between band members. Several Miles Davis/John Coltrane recordings come to mind, like the first European tour by the Davis/Coltrane quintet, certain Newport Jazz Festival recordings and, of course, Kind of Blue. In addition to repeated listening, I've read different books and contemporaneous reviews. So, for those recordings, I have much more "encyclopedic" knowledge about the lineup, the venue and the historical significance of the material. 

Then there are those sources where the quality of the recording is superior but there's nothing spectacular about the music itself nor any notable historic significance. I'm much less informed about these albums but I love the way they sound in my room and they allow me to hear deep into my system. Chick Corea's Trilogy albums come to mind. The music itself is stellar, the lineup is superior in jazz terms, and the recording is phenomenal. It doesn't matter to me that they're bot necessarily breaking new ground the way Davis and Coltrane were. I appreciate these albums and listen to them in a different way.

The same can be said for rock music, though. I'm much better informed about historically significant rock albums (Beatles, Yardbirds, Al Kooper) than about other rock music. 
Maybe I'm just not a big enough jazz fan, but for me it's probably the only genre I listen to where it's important for it to sound good. This doesn't mean, though, that I refuse to listen to Django or scratchy old Louis Armstrong reissues.
The best systems make everything sound better. They do not disseminate from old 78's of Fats Waller   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSNPpssruFY to 192/24 Nine Inch Nails. It all sounds incredible. 
Seems as my systems have gotten better, my recordings have gotten worse!  Jazz almost always sounds good though.  So I listen.  But Iove my pop stuff.  Geez it can hard to listen to though.