Jazz has been treated so poorly by the mass media that the advent of a documentary such as JAZZ has, within the jazz community, taken on a responsibility that is in some regards misplaced. It is as though all of the slights and misrepresentations of the past must be rectified by mentioning every major player's name, at the expense of a clear narrative that is aiming for something much larger in scope in terms of our American experience. Such detail would quickly lose the great majority of viewers who have no previous interest in the music or its background. JAZZ has also been taken to task for not addressing in depth the music's more recent developments, but such judgements would be premature, for the dust has yet to settle. Ornette Coleman's music of 1960 is now 40 years old, but a musician delving into that stream would hardly be called a traditionalist today, while someone creating within the idiom of the John Kirby Sextet, Count Basie or Benny Goodman would.
Musicians continue to arrive on the scene dedicated to every idiom of the jazz tradition.
It might be worthwhile to establish your own criteria for what presses your aesthetic buttons, make your own decisions, but leave the style-tagging to the jazz media, which always needs something to hang its current sympathies on. As mentioned earlier, virtually every country in which jazz has developed has its own traditions and unique amalgam of musical influences. If you ignore these important developments, you engage in aesthetic xenophobia.