I just puked

Partial solution: BLOW-UP THE TV....TURN-UP THE STEREO.
Hear only what you want to.

Call me "selfish" but I feel like fatparrot. Precious memories are pissed on and I lose desire to listen to my collection of these artists' music. My defense is to watch even less commercial television...a good mental health move.

Rock and Roll is now, and always has been, a thoroughgoing whorehouse. Rock and Roll is incorruptible, simply because any outside contamination, from any vile or cynical source, will only serve to temporarily ennoble it. Is there anyone who is willing to argue that The Beatles were not, first and foremost, a commercial enterprise, a calculated hit machine? As John Lennon sayeth to Sir Paul McCartney, "Let's write a new swimming pool." Seeing as how we've already mentioned Donovan, I hope that I am not the only one who remembers Jennifer Juniper Shampoo. So, we have The Buzzcocks selling SUVs, and Iggy Pop selling cruises. So what!

Anyone who has had the pleasure of owning or driving a Cadillac from the 1930's or 1940's can testify to its grandeur and exquisite craftsmanship. I would argue that it is Led Zeppelin's "Rock n' Roll" that has sullied and defiled Cadillac, not the other way around. This ad campaign was a rare brilliant move on the part of GM. Among all luxury car brands, Cadillac had the highest average customer age (62!), BMW, on the other hand, had the youngest. To counteract this, Cadillac needed to find buyers among a demographic where they had none (i.e., those born between 1955 and 1965).

Somebody call me when a tune from The Mentors or G.G. Allin is used to sell Pop-Tarts.

Another thing to consider is that the original artists often have no say as to whether there work is used for commercials. It depends on who owns the rights at this point. Remember when the formerly black singer Michael Jackson bought the Beatles catalog ? That's when songs like Revolution and Get Back started to be used in commercials.
And he got them even though Paul McCarney (not exactly a poor kid anymore) owns the rights to a huge number of songs.

The artists hopefully get a piece of the profit for doing the performance, but they don't neccesarily have a say on where and when it is played.

Is this the difference between art and amusement? Art is it's own reward even if it is not recognized as art by others. People who make real art don't do it for the money.

Amusement would be music made by people just for the sake of making music. Not that there's anything wrong with that. People should have the right to do whatever they want with their own music.

People who record for the sake of creating art would be less inclined to whore it out while people who are only in it for the money would sell anything they can.