just like jazz was not the classical of its era...they are apples, oranges and bananas...you can draw parallels but I don't think they are the same.

And the live performance thing is something you can't just pass off as "oh yea, except live performance"
some would agree that live performance is the most important part of music.
Jazz changed the game because of improvisation in live performance, and the fact that many musicians were "freestyling"...which is why many classical purists never accepted it as a true artform and they still don't, even if they are teaching jazz in conservatories now...
classical music was first and foremost about the composition, and performance was judged on how accurately an orchestra or performer could interpret the composition.
Jazz was based on the idea of variations on a theme...making it appeal to listeners because it was never going to be exactly the same every time and the most talented were those who could innovate in a way that caused a sensational reaction.
Electronic music, may be our generations original artform, but it really doesn't make it anything like jazz...or classical for that matter...
Electronic music can be improvised, but as was stated earlier, the best freestylers and most innovative electronic performers take a back seat in popularity to the electronic music that is pre-fabricated...the live performance aspect cannot really be fully appreciated by those who don't know exactly what the performer is doing, the layman, like a sax solo can be appreciated by someone who has never played the sax before...

so while it is the most innovative form of music in our generation...why does it have to be jazz? it isn't...it is its own thing and I'm cool with that...