@frogman, I can see how my posts above could very easily be misconstrued, so allow me to clarify. I did not intend to suggest that artists who are more commercially rewarded are any less motivated by their love of music than are those less well rewarded. ALL serious musicians sacrifice a lot to become the superior artists they are, the thought of the income the life of a professional musician will produce being the furthest thing from their minds (except Kiss. Oh yeah, I said serious ;-) .
However, some musicians choose career paths KNOWING that that path will lead to less financial reward than will a more "mainstream" path. I used the example of Ricky Skaggs above. Bluegrass comprises a much smaller percentage of the music market than does mainstream Country, yet when he had established a sizeable audience in Country, Ricky turned his back on that market, KNOWING it would result in him earning less. I’m not saying that he loves music any more than does any popular Country star you can name, I’m just saying that I love Bluegrass, a music whose practitioners have chosen over a genre they are well aware of would be more financially rewarding.
When the "Original Instrument"/"Historically Informed" movement in the Baroque music community started in the late 60’s, the audience for it was very small. The pioneers of that movement were roundly panned by mainstream reviewers, but it’s practitioners felt deeply that their style of performing Baroque music was a better, more musically appropriate and "correct" (as the composer intended) style in which to perform the music. The development of the modern Symphony Orchestra, with it’s massive number of musicians, had lead to Baroque music being performed in a manner (as if it were from the Romantic era) unrelated to the intent of the composer. The movement was dedicated to correcting that situation, and it’s practitioners ended up being proven correct; the best Baroque era artists are now uniformly of the Original Instrument/Historically Informed persuasion. Yet that era remains a minority taste, it’s artists therefore less well compensated than members of major Symphony Orchestras. That does NOT mean Baroque artists are more motivated by their love of music than are Symphony Orchestra players, but it just so happens that Baroque is my favorite era in Classical (though I love Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner, and many other non-Baroque composers. Can’t get into Brahms and Bruckner, for whatever reason ;-), and therefore my favorite Classical music is made by those who have chosen to forfeit some income in the name of music. See, it’s an asymmetrical argument!
By the way, the Classical/Pop demarcation can be disputed; much Jazz and Theater music is just as sophisticated and complex as is most Classical. There’s Duke Ellington, Count Basie, Irvin Berlin, George Gershwin, Cole Porter, Richard Rodgers, plenty of others. And don’t underestimate Brian Wilson!
So when I agreed with schubert’s assertion that "the best done material is when it’s done for love first and foremost", I was attempting to make the point that my favorite music just so happens to be made by artists plowing the fields which reap the lowest reward, artists who chose to do so with the knowledge that it will in all likelihood limit their financial compensation. In other words, they put their love of music first and foremost.