Then I submit it is not Jazz. Or rather, if Jazz has become a "show" then I don't want to play it.
Jazz always was a show. Surely you can't believe that Armstrong, Ellington, Waller, Basie, Hampton, Goodman and so on and so on didn't know that they were putting on a show to entertain the public?
Entertainment <> mindless entertainment.
MG
Sure, I'll by that. But if you're telling me that Coltrane was a show, I'm not going to agree. I've seen enough live music (Jazz and otherwise) to draw a distinction. David Lee Roth and Kiss were definitely shows. Air, Billy Bang, Billy Harper and Clifford Jordan definitely were not. Harper definitely dresses for the occasion, but that certainly doesn't relegate the music to "entertainment."
Of course, I don't see that it's possible to relegate music to entertainment - though it's possible to relegate music to mindless entertainment.
I haven't seen any of the jazz musicians you mention, but I've heard Harper and Jordan. It's clear to me that their music is directed at getting through to their audiences and I'll take on trust that the same's true for Air and Bang. So it's entertainment. It may also be other things as well: art; politics; the accompaniment to courtship ritual etc. But it's always directed towards the benefit of the audience and therefore has to engage their interest/participation in a number of ways simultaneously, otherwise the music can't get through to do its work. (Hm, and the musicians don't get paid.)
Wearing appropriate clothes to suit the needs of the audience is part of that. That doesn't necessarily mean suits. Sun Ra knew that
MG