Showing my personal view of the music industry of today, where producers decide what the next hit is going to be, inventing backgound soud affects to keep rythm for people who basically cannot read music, let alone sing well without having their voice  funneled  through audio machinery, was simply to make a point.

The point being, there are just many more wonderful saxophones on the market than there are musicians to play them. The saturated market is what caused the demise of all the saxophone producers. It simply costs too much to make a comperable horn to say a 1964 Mark VI tenor at todays costs. There are simply thousands of them sitting around, but priced above 8,000.

So, they sit till a player finally finds the horn they cant live without. Check out Saxquests inventory of horns for sale.

Jazz is dead because nobody goes to listen to it. Those that followed Jazz are simply too old and fall asleep by 10:00, before the fist set even ends. No different than saying Mozart is dead. The musicians cannot afford to live on what they make as a working musician, so, Like Myself, they find a day job. So only the true lovers of the music listen to it today. Most of them are musicians themselves.

And I agree whole heartedly with you. It is Sad very Sad. If the music of today was less commercialized, this conversation would never take place.

I agree 100% about the dreadful commercial music industry, but I'm more optimistic than you are about the ability of real jazz to find a receptive audience.  Jazz has seldom had more support from the music industry than it does now.  Early jazz was recorded for small "race" labels; bebop was first recorded for small independent labels.  The swing era sparked major label interest in jazz because it had demonstrated its appeal to a mainstream (read "white") audience, but the real forefront of jazz continued to be with minor labels.  And today the influence of the commercial recording industry is crumbling with digital technology making any entrepeneur able to compete with their recording and distributing (although not promotional) capabilities.  The media-entertainment complex is in the same position with music as it is with news media - propelled largely by inertia and availability but facing a serious challenge from alternative sources.  Nobody but Hollywood cares about the Grammys anymore.  Look at the viewership figures.  

The DJ era has impacted live dance music - rock&roll and R&B - much more than it has impacted live jazz.  When good live jazz is made available, audiences respond.  But there are big ifs surrounding "good" and "available."  Too many musicians in local scenes take a lowball approach, not developing anything distinctive and relying on half-assed renditions out of volume I of The Real Book.  That's the surest way to bore the audience away, even those who seek jazz.  That's not exactly a formula for convincing venue owners that jazz is worth hosting.  On the plus side, jazz is one of the less demanding forms of music from the standpoint of hosting, with less space requirements, less demand for a sound system, easier audiences, and less potential conflict with noise ordinances.  But musicians have to spark sufficient interest to convince venue owners that they are worth hosting, and some are apparently not willing to spend the effort to do so.  While making no assumptions about your experience, musicians seem to prefer to claim that audiences are not receptive to jazz over making any real effort to bring their game up.