Remove “In Their Prime” -- it' ageist, insulting to the artist and ridiculously subjective [not on roadmap]

Get rid of “In Their Prime”.

Look at Miles Davis whose prime is indicated as 1956-1968. Are you telling me that Miles Davis was not in his prime when he released Bitches Brew (1970) perhaps the most revolutionary jazz album ever?

What about Bill Evans? Are you telling me that one of the greatest pianists in jazz was only in his prime for four years (1959-1963)? Ridiculous!

There are other artists that I looked up that also have been insulted by your subjective view of their prime years. Totally inappropriate.


It’s not an artistic or editorial distinction, I would assume, but rather the sheer numbers associated with the albums they put out during their “prime” years. In aggregate, it seems rather correct to me that Miles’ 1956-1968 albums are his best selling and best known – i.e., most popular – albums (despite the critical acclaim of, say, Bitches Brew). Doesn’t make it right, but for the user exploring new music, it is helpful/useful in highlighting the “high point” of a particular discography.


I doubt jazz/pop artist George Benson would agree with Roon that his “prime” ended in 1981 when he has been releasing best selling and varied albums now for forty years since 1981 (and probably selling a lot more albums in that 40 year span than prior to 1981).


Neil Young’s “prime” apparently ended in1979 according to Roon but I’m glad to see that Bob Dylan is not out of his “prime” nor is Paul Simon nor Bruce Springsteen according to Roon. What did Dylan, Simon and Springsteen do right? This whole concept is utter nonsense and does nothing to steer anyone to discovering valuable music as artists change and evolve over time and all time periods of an artist should be encouraged to be explored.


It’s not “according to Roon”.
The Roon team does not do editorial judgments, and doesn’t do metadata of any kind.
This is a categorization from their metadata source, as was pointed out in these pages.


The “In Their Prime” folderol is exactly what I should be able to toggle on and off in settings.

I know the Roon core team, like @enno @danny and @mike are all authentic HARD CORE MUSIC LOVERS with great knowledge. They must spot these bursts of spurious pseudo-information like we do.

Building these gimcracks into the software and then not letting me turn them off is a turnoff.


Is this thread a joke?


For starters, this feature has nothing to do with age. In their prime refers to an artist’s period of seminal works. If you don’t believe that exists, you’re not much of a music scholar. I’m seeing the same for a band that’s 20 years old and now defunct, highlighting 4 of their first six years. Which is indeed their most important albums.

Neil Young’s prime was certainly the 70’s. Not insulting, that’s his place in rock history. The only thing here that sounds “ageist” is OP’s collection. :joy:


WOW … we must be approaching the age of AI … is “offers an opinion I disagree with” a bug or an intellectual disagreement with an AI? :wink:

Turing test please!


I detect a lot of man-splaning here about what is and isn’t ageist


In my opinion, that’s a rather superficial way of looking at things. Just because we are well-intentioned doesn’t mean our choice of words can’t be perceived as discriminatory or insulting.

Yes, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the question whether the expression “in their prime” is ageist or not.


Athletes have primes. Musicians have primes. Has nothing to do with age. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of objective criticism if an artist can’t have a period where they are objectively at their most creative. That’s the nature of criticism. Don’t have to show reviews or look at features you aren’t interested in, but I’m laughing at how ridiculous it is to call this ageist. I just pointed out that a band could be from the 2000’s and past their prime, ie not a band anymore. Political correctness gone awry on this forum.


Just because someone chooses to IGNORE the negative connotations of an expression doesn’t mean such connotations don’t exist. And please don’t insult people’s intelligence by claiming that an athlete’s prime has nothing to do with his or her age…


I really hope this feature stays in there forever for people to get upset about


Can you suggest an alternative?


No, I can’t. In my opinion, this information is superfluous. Others may disagree.

Of all things users wants to see toggle switches for, this is by far the most funny one.

Would still be interesting to know what “in their prime” is based on and where that info is pulled from. Knowing that, it would be easier to go to the source and argue the opinion to why that is incorrect.

1 Like

Alternatives might depend on how the selection process is being made

Most records released in a time frame, Prolific

Most Records sold in a time frame, Popular

Most Critical Acclaim in a time frame, then Critical Darlings :smiley:

Off the top of my head, the above is not meant as one for one replacements.

Is “In their Prime” ageist. I don’t feel that it is. However, I can understand if the period being highlighted doesn’t agree with my definition of “In Their Prime”, being annoyed by it. There is the connotation that works NOT listed are considered lesser, and/or, the fact that the section even exists suggest that the Artist is done.

Take Bowie, Roon has Bowie’s Prime ending with Scary Monsters. No Let’s Dance? Personally, I feel Blackstar was easily one of his most interesting albums of his career.

1 Like

I didn’t get upset about this feature at all. To be honest, I hadn’t even noticed it before reading this thread. I replied to your posts mainly because of the following two statements:

“In their prime” is NOT a technical term from the field of musicology, and “objectivity” is a rather nebulous concept in this particular context.


Blackstar was made at the end of his life. His late output is fairly inconsequential outside of that album compared to his prime. “In their prime” is exactly what it means. Bowie’s prime was through ‘70’s. Let’s Dance is outside of his prime creativity, touring, production. Doesn’t mean it’s bad. There’s gems and late career renaissances from many artists, but that doesn’t mean they fall into their prime. I wouldn’t call Pink Floyd’s prime 1994 just because Division Bell album and tour were awesome! Miles’ section covers ever major style he is known for pioneering into the electric. It has none of the 80’s funk which is pretty inconsequential in comparison. It seems to line up to most reviews of his career.

I’m baffled this even needs explaining on a forum for supposed music enthusiasts! Show me products providing a tool like this that is more “accurate”.