It's cool if that player wants to keep expanding on only that time period of music, but they are a pain in the axe if their attitude is dismissive toward all jazz that came after the 40's. It is amazing to me that so many people have such strong opinions about what jazz is, and yet have such a narrow perspective. Yes, there were plenty of areas under the broad jazz umbrella that did not get covered. Just covering the history of the known national jazz figures would not even make a dent on the surface of what jazz is about. To be complete you would also have to look internationally and regionally and cover the jazz warriors that have made wonderful contributions to jazz, yet have never gotten any recognition for their efforts.
Jazz just has too many variables to satisfy everyone with an opinion.
The areas that Ken Burns covered were informative, interesting and cool to look at. It is a waste of your time to make a big deal about trashing something you don't dig. When I hear these people play, I miss a certain completeness about their playing. A classical chamber musician does not have to like Metallica, but if they've never listened to metal, they are missing a whole direction of energy that they could bring to the music they play. The jazz or rock musician that does not explore classical music is missing out on a whole piece of the musical puzzle which teaches a discipline that will aid them in being a complete musician.