Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both examples you picked were at the very top of their profession - and then some - even at their time. I'm not sure if looking at the Newtons, Einsteins, or Mozarts and Bachs of the past tells us all that much for the current discussion. Not to leave it at criticism, while highly specialized, the excellent lectures of Professor Christopher Page of Gresham College linked on the bottom of https://www.gresham.ac.uk/spe…
All examples in the original comment are people at the top of the profession. Literally none of them is average music teacher. And the question was "who paid for the great music of the period". Einstein was not richer then other physicians. His fame could have help him when emigrating and at keeping employment, but afaik it was not rewarded by super unusual riches.
And how does that invalidate the argument? "Others made the same mistake!" - Yes, and?
> Einstein was not richer then other physicians.
How is this relevant to the argument? (Rhetorical question - it is not)
> And the question was "who paid for the great music of the period".
OP wrote "there were a heck of a lot of great composers in that period". Which is correct - most of the works were from regular people. They were not as outstanding as Mozart or Bach, but still produced a lot of the great music. People like Johann Pachelbel, to give an example. Not in the same league as Mozart, but there were many of the same type and they produced most of the music of the period.
I play recorder and violin and most of the sheet music I play is from those more normal people.
Oh and the parent (buscoquadnary) is not quite correct when he only points to "patronage". A lot, if not most of those people made money with performances (Mozart too! - https://www.biography.com/news/mozart-pauper-lost-fortune) and with teaching.