Images and Words was released 25 years ago today

[Samsara]

It's so subjective. I mean, "Classic Albums" are usually defined by sales and mass popularity that over time end up continuing to resonate with an audience. That's not entirely fair, but generally speaking, as the public understands the term "classic album," that's how it's thought of.

For us, music snobs, it can mean totally different things. I consider the Images/Awake records to be Dream Theater's "classic" period where they were at their pinnacle. So those records are "classics" to me. But I can easily understand why others would say something like SFAM or another record is.

It's almost pointless.

[bosk1]

It's so subjective. I mean, "Classic Albums" are usually defined by sales and mass popularity that over time end up continuing to resonate with an audience. That's not entirely fair, but generally speaking, as the public understands the term "classic album," that's how it's thought of.

For us, music snobs, it can mean totally different things. I consider the Images/Awake records to be Dream Theater's "classic" period where they were at their pinnacle. So those records are "classics" to me. But I can easily understand why others would say something like SFAM or another record is.

Yes.  But for this discussion, to me, I&W fits both sets of criteria.  I think it's a "classic" by either definition.  But that doesn't mean it's perfect.  And it doesn't have to be.  That's all my point was.

[OpenYourEyes311]

Let me see if I got this straight.  "It's a true classic".  "All the good songs are just so good".  Where does the "a lot of filler" and "one of their most inconsistent albums" part come in?  That just doesn't make any sense.  Why don't you "fill" us in.

The good songs are really good. Not all of the songs are really good.

It's not too difficult.

Exactly.  But to be a bit more verbose, here is what I typed up and was ready to post before Adami posted more concisely:

I'm not sure what the issue is.  But as far as my thoughts on the album, I've posted them in pretty good detail many times.  In a nutshell:  PMU, Metropolis, Wait for Sleep, and Learning To Live are some of the best things they have ever done.  Under a Glass Moon, Take the Time, and, to a lesser extent, Surrounded, have some cool moments, but are largely just "there" and aren't nearly up to the incredibly high standard I expect for DT songs.  I don't skip them.  But I would never go out of my way to listen to them, and often find myself tuning out during them.  And Another Day is definitely a bottom tier DT song.  Still, on the strength of the 4 songs I mentioned, and its undeniable place in prog metal history, the album definitely deserves "classic" status.  It was (and still is) a revolutionary album, and, like many albums, its weak points don't diminish that fact--they only diminish it in terms of where I would rank the album.  There's no shame in an album having songs that are relatively weak.  Many of the album we consider "classics" do.

I totally respect your opinion and everything, but I can't disagree more. I'm just astonished (pun not intended at first, and then totally intended) that you would put Take the Time and Under a Glass Moon in your "just there" category, when those are literally my top two songs from this album. I don't get it, but you can think whatever you'd like.

[emtee]

Individual tastes.

I think every song on that album is a 10/10 and would rank Under A Glass Moon among their best ever compositions. But different people
hear different things.

[bosk1]

And I absolutely respect others' right to disagree.  But even going way back to 1992 when I first discovered the album, I have felt that way, for the most part.  The only song that I have really changed my opinion on is TTT, which I used to like given that its catchy parts are immediately catchy.  I just grew tired of it very quickly and felt there wasn't enough to hold my interest.  But I get why others may love the songs I do not.  I just don't find them compelling.  And that's okay. 

[Dublagent66]

Let me see if I got this straight.  "It's a true classic".  "All the good songs are just so good".  Where does the "a lot of filler" and "one of their most inconsistent albums" part come in?  That just doesn't make any sense.  Why don't you "fill" us in.

The good songs are really good. Not all of the songs are really good.

It's not too difficult.

Of course that's easy enough if you want to be selective about it, but that wasn't really my main point.  Liking or not liking certain songs is one thing, but I asked about a lot of filler and inconsistency when describing I&W as a "classic".  It doesn't really compute.  It's ok to describe certain songs as weaker than others but that doesn't mean they are inconsistent or "filler" as previously mentioned.  It's not like DT was only able to come up with a certain amount of good songs and then decided to "fill" in the gaps.  That's kind of what it sounds like when using that descriptor.

[KevShmev]

Right, using the word "filler" to describe a song you do not like has never made sense to me.  Your point nailed it, Dublagent66. 

[ytserush]

Still remember seeing this at a record fair a month before it was supposed to come out. Had been listening to the first album for three years thinking that was all it was ever going to be.

There was a stack of of promo CDs with a small drill holes on the corner of the cases and the hype sticker stuck to the jewel case so I grabbed one. Until then they weren't on my radar for possible live gigs for a few years so I missed that Maiden show in June '92.

Still remember the first time I heard it. It was kind of like Journey on steroids and the vocalist was different. Took me a while to warm up to it. Sounded way too polished and slick. The live gigs helped a lot with balancing that out.