I know that bands that haven't put out a record for 10 years are playing to 20,000 people a night. But that's not the achievement.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
As opposed to touring for three years and then going into the studio and writing an album, I think this record is representative of a lot of everyday people.
Usually, a band 20 years into its existence doesn't put out its best records.
I can count on one hand the number of instrumental hits there have been over the last ten years.
Musicians were always coming and going in our house. My parents didn't play much, but they were forever arranging these parties for artists. As a result, they didn't have to play that many records.
Well the way I ended up with my own record is that I did this concert at Wesleyan University. It was just one night and we had no thought of making a record.
Most of the people I know in bands, all they are concerned about is getting to do the next record.
Do you know how many concerts I've done in my whole life, in more than 35 years of performing? Sixty-four.
I think we could have done a lot more great music, so I was disappointed that we didn't continue making records and touring, but it's hard to argue with 10 good years.
If you start out trying to achieve a specific thing - like doing stadium shows or going into the studio and doing an album - the end result is what counts.
Bands like R.E.M. and even The Replacements, during that initial wave of college rock, would sell 40, 50, 100,000 copies of a record, and that would be seen as extremely successful - and definitely enough to keep doing more.
No opposing quotes found.