How come the average musician in the jazz scene is alot more capable than the average musician in say rock?

Basically what i'm asking is how come Jazz world-wide has such a high standard of musicians on average, yet the average musician that say gigs in the rock genre is of alot less quality?|||The are interesting points in the first two comments that probably will help answer your question.





I can only give you my spin on it and hope you pick up some more pieces to the puzzle.





First off, you might be surprised at the number of high profile rock players are great jazz players and visa versa.


"Sting" was originally a successful jazz singer before developing his own sound.


Charlie Watts is an excellent jazz drummer with quite a few jazz recordings under his belt but he's best known as the drummer for the Rolling Stones.


Ernie Watts is a well-respected tenor sax player in jazz circles and played in the Tonight Show band (during the Carson years) for 20 years. But that's his solo you hear on the Rolling Stones' "Brown Sugar" and he toured with them in '81.





I guess my point is musicianship is musicianship. Don't assume that your favorite rock players only play in that genre. Or the other way around. All of the great musicians know you learn anything from anyone at any time in any place.





I started out playing in "garage bands" where we would listen to a tune we wanted to do and copy what you heard. The ultimate compliment was "...hey, man, that sounds just like the record" (even if it was on a CD!).


I've played with some killer rock guitarists...as long as they could play what was on the recording. They could not improvise freely even over the simplest chord progression(s). Their musical brain was just not wired that way. They learned by "rote" or copying; either from a recording or from someone else.


But then you have the option to dig deeper into the tune. What exactly WAS the progression? How many recordings of the tune are there? What's different? Same? Who played that solo? What other groups has he played with?


In order to be a jazz player you MUST "study" these things. And your playing becomes the product of your results.





If you read only one story your vocabulary, dynamic expression, phrasing; etc, will be limited to that one story. You could be the best teller of that story but you still would be limited.


Until you read another version. Now your resources have just doubled.


Or a similar plot line on a different subject. Now your resources have just tripled.


Your "average" musician is "average" because he chooses to do so.


Not because of the music itself.|||Many rock musicians just play chords. And the better ones' musical extent is playing notes of scales.





To play, interpret, improvise and compose jazz, you have to be very well into musical theory and jazz theory. Otherwise it sounds terrible.





And after you understand all that, you have to add a personal touch, otherwise you won't be considered as a good jazz musician, and therefore won't be remembered. THEREFORE you won't set a stereotype for jazz musicians.





In average (soft ie. not heavy metal) rock, they all just play chords, albeit interesting ones. This is why it's popular, because it sounds familiar to the listener, and they enjoy it more.|||For many reasons. Jazz developed before than rock, meaning it is much more complex. If we take as an example Charles Mingus, he mixed jazz with classical music and infact he's considered one of the greatest composers of the 20th century.


In rock the "touch" is not as important as in jazz. Rock drummers for example just need to "bang the drum". In jazz, playing with nuance is the first rule.


to put it simply, jazz musicians are more capable than rock musicians because they need to control themselves.|||Hmmm, I believe that Jazz is just a different genre.





I believe Rock, Jazz, whatever type of band - all are serious about their music and play to their highest standards and expect a high standard of musician for their own genre.





I would never say that the rock genre musicians are of a lot less quality - that is not true. They are just as capable in their genre than a jazz musician is in his/hers.





To judge a different genre without fully immursing yourself in that other genre to understand what all goes into it would be just a theory and, in my opinion a bit snobby to put down another genre. Music is healing to people and because "it takes every kind of people to make the world go 'round" different genres for different people - no need to diss another genre because they don't play how you migh like them to play. That would be just plain offensive and unnecessary.





Jazz is way more difficult than rock and pop, in my opinion (as I've played pop and, well, light rock, but mostly Latin, Brasilian and Middle-Eastern - all genres of which are, in my experience, the same learning curve as jazz.





I happen to love just about every genre of music available in the world (excepting speed metal and new age), so I'm here sticking up for all the music of the world's people. (heh, that was the name of one of my brother's D.J. shows when he was music director of a radio station for many a year.|||Average rock musician uses catchy pop style music with light lyrics and typically guitar based songs aimed at the masses as a slick commercial product, the above average rock musicians obviously delve deeper into their output / songs, workload to present a more involved musical offering still aimed at the commercial market to gain credence on the charts while honouring their record contracts.


No being an afficardo of rock,( average or otherwise), am unable to give a justified opinion only to add that Hendricks imo covers all the above average requirements of a rock /fusion guitarist.





Average jazz musicians am not interested in i only collect /listen to above average recordings / video's that includes those i admire most in terms of genius, classic innovation, free jazz musicians who work hard to earn a living, only a select few have reached millionaire status to relax enough into a more personal style that is universally recognised by all.|||Money.





In the jazz world, especially in the non-commercial jazz world, (omitting artists like Micheal Buble, and Kenny God Awful G), you have to be able to play everything and anything to make money. that means learning a lot, and getting really good at your instrument(s). The only way you can get gigs is if your **** is all together. There is no brownie points for having swell hair, or looking like a super model. You have to be able to play, and be good enough that people want to get lessons from you. You got to love it to be in it. But money is the answer to your question. You can argue about the worth, or complexity of the music all you want, but its always about the Benjamins.|||To a large extent, I agree with the answer above, but remember not to disrespect people for the kind of music they play. I have seen a lot of hard working, capable rock musicians and plenty of jazz players who seem to think that the fact that they play jazz makes them somehow superior, even though they suck.|||most of the jazz players have a great background in theory--while many rock players have a limited background in theory