Steven Schwartz wrote:

>In general, composers who worked for the theater made more money than
>composers who didn't.  We could add Meyerbeer, Delibes, Weill, Massenet,
>Korngold, Stravinsky, and Bernstein, although the latter two made pots of
>money from conducting gigs.  Same with Copland.

Actually, in Mozart period and even earlier, neither symphony composers
nor opera composers could make big money with works as their income
were mainly from their so called protectors/owners, those nobles.  Their
social status as composers were very low.  Telemann and Parlestrina are
exceptional and lucky for having "kind" protectors compared with Mozart.
Composers working for theatre doesn't have good reputation.  "Mozart went
into theatre from backdoor, Beethoven forced people to admit him and his
greatness with his thundering and storming power.  It was Wagner who
really established the superior social status as genius musicians for
music composers and players."(sorry, forget who said that) Personally, I
think the reason why opera composers could make more money than symphony
composers is that opera can attract people easily with story, roles, even
decoration and clothes (clothes played great role in Wagner's opera like
Die Walkure, Ring, etc.).  Opera is closer to people especially common
people who can be called arts consumers so it is more marketable, it
doesn't even need much package compared with symphonies which obviously not
everyone could enjoy.  The most persuasive exmple is to Andrew Lloyd Weber
with Stravinsky (from symphony composer angle, Rite of Spring and
Firebird).

Ying Liu