Rok, with all due respect you could not be more mistaken in both your assertions and your assumptions. No one has suggested that classical music is better than jazz. Both are serious music and each demands different disciplines. The truth is that classical puts a level of technical demands on the player that jazz does not. Even Wynton, accomplished as he is, would not be able to consistently do what the principal trumpet in a major symphony orchestra is required to do. Likewise, Duke playing Scriabin wouldn't sound any more credible than most orchestras playing Mingus. In your eagerness to run to the defense of jazz you fail to see what one of the beauties of jazz is: the fact that great music can be made by a player with RELATIVELY limited (by classical music standards) command of their instrument. It is a music that not only allows a less structured approach to playing, but in some ways requires it. It is not harder to play jazz than to play classical. You obviously don't know just how hard it is (to use one example) to play one single note perfectly in tune and control it all the way from a whisper to a roar. Improvising at a high level is also very difficult and to compare the two disciplines in an attempt to proclaim one to be "better" is silly and, frankly, sophomoric.
Once again, one of the many reasons why learning a little more about music is extremely valuable. Nothing wrong with simply enjoying it and relying on what one likes best, but once assertions l like that are made some facts to back them up are needed.
