Operas and classical was the commercial music of it’s time.
Not true...
Projecting our actual economical categories on the past is not very useful...
First Vivaldi, Haendel and Bach were paid by some Religious or Noble elites not by a general popular market in the modern sense at all...
Second put the word "popular" instead of "commercial" word if you want to be truthful ... Why?
Because the tradition was not about economical consumerism but about learning cultural and spiritual activities, religious or secular, but NEVER based on pure mercantilism but on transmission of cultural values mainly....
Third, music was mainly a spiritual event paid by church for centuries...And with no recording, playing musicians were mostly artists or learning families playings, nothing commercial ...
But you can abuse the word and concept and claim that standing in a hall after buying a ticket to listen Liszt was a "commercial" event...But it will be completely beside the point of whatmusic was meaning at this modern time period...
Commercial music is an invention of this last industrial century mainly....
Then Operas and classical was the popular music of it’s time...Not the "commercial" affair it is today....
And a commercial publicity for an opera in Italy in the 19 century, has not much to do with consumerism marketing strategies of today....Puccini was popular yes, but not a consumers objetc, he was idolized because he was a true artist....This is not commerce, even if there is commercial aspect, the singers must be paid etc, this is culture event first and last ....
Modern pop industry can even create temporary idols who dont have almost no talent at all , one after the others...I will not name one...But they all know how to walk and dance for sure... They are sold with visuals...