"Aesthetically, we were enormously successful. Economically... there was no success. It was all about music of the future and unfortunately it was a band that didn't have any future"

Wayne Kramer reflects on a tension central to many pioneering artists: the gulf between creative innovation and commercial recognition. When he says "Aesthetically, we were enormously successful", he points to the artistic achievements, originality, and lasting influence his band, presumably the MC5, attained. Within this sphere, their work was groundbreaking, pushing boundaries in sound, performance, and style. They crafted music with a bold, unconventional vision that resonated deeply with those attuned to emerging artistic currents, serving as an inspiration for future generations. The use of "aesthetically" indicates that their success resided in the realm of artistic merit and cultural impact, not constrained by the market's fleeting preferences.

Contrasting this, the following assertion, "Economically... there was no success", highlights the financial reality that haunted many avant-garde acts. Despite their bold creativity, they failed to achieve commercial prosperity. Often, bands that stray from the mainstream struggle to appeal to mass audiences, especially if their music or attitude challenges established norms. Revenue from record sales, concerts, and deals may not follow, which puts stress on a band's sustainability. The ellipsis before "there was no success" suggests a reluctant admission, even disappointment or regret, acknowledging how vital economic security is for longevity and for affording a creative life.

Kramer further notes, "It was all about music of the future and unfortunately it was a band that didn't have any future". Here, a bittersweet irony emerges. The band committed themselves to innovation, focusing on creating work ahead of its time, destined perhaps for later appreciation. But being too ahead often means the culture isn't ready; their artistic ambitions outpaced the possibilities for sustainable success in their present. The group became a paradox: creators of the “music of the future” with no future themselves. This mournful observation encapsulates the often-painful reality that innovation is not always, immediately, rewarded, and that visionaries may pay for being out of step with their era’s expectations.