Hmmmm...
in an academic and historical sense.... yes..... for at least 4 reasons
1 Jazz is a lot older than Rock its been there long before the record industry was conceived, rock just came along sometime in the 50's which is a by product of RnB
2 To play Jazz you will have to learn a lot of music music theory to know the rules for you to break them.... its has more complex structures while rock is more predictable.... basically you'll have to graduate from Rock to play Jazz (in a sense)
3 Rock reflects adolescent rebellion while jazz (generally) represents matured elegant class (makes sense?)
4 In terms of demographic taste most kids relate to rock (duh) while most older people can tolerate jazz
As a player, artistically speaking NO, maybe i just like fast loud and aggressive music more than complex elegant progressions, their just two different genres. i've been pursuing jazz for my personal study hoping that someday i can graduate to become a jazz player.... but i still think the rock n roll spirit will be forever in me since (in my hearth) im an eternal teenager.
in a nutshell... if we sum it all down to a general musical aptitude.... my answer is Yes
note: but if someone who plays jazz is downplaying someone who plays rock (as in nilalagyan at vocally bargging about is musical level)... i think he is personally immature despite his mature musical aptitude.
i think musical aptitude is different from personal aptitude.... tama i've seen some jazz players that are immature... and ive seen some rock players who are mature as well.
