Juxtapositions of Choice by Great Musicians - Rhetorical Questions to Mull Over?...

I will cite decisions made by three famous musicians, which, for me, result in -  "really?? Why?"
The legendary Spanish pianist Jose Iturbi was listed among the leading performers of his day, and enjoyed a world wide reputation as both harpsichordist and pianist, let alone a conductor of many leading orchestras during a lengthy career.  During the 1940's,  Iturbi appeared in several Hollywood extravaganzas, playing or conducting in circus-like atmospheres, surrounded by bathing beauties and other individuals who were worlds apart from the Iturbi persona, socially and cuturally.
In 1961, the singular American composer Aaron Copeland wrote music for one of the weakest film dramas extant, in my opinion, centering around a  depressed young lady roaming street after street, going in no particular direction, with the denouement of the story falling flat on its physiognomy.
In 1939, the violinist Jascha Heifetz, at the height of his immense powers as, arguably, the century's  king among the violinists, appeared in a film that was, shall one say, less distinguished than Heifetz'  station among the great musicians of that period. The script was obviously written around the entity called Heifetz, and was rather forgettable in depth and general direction.
No; I am not a prude, sniffing derisively at these rather strange decisions promulgated by these illustrious artists. I am merely making an attempt to fit the artist and his decision into a sphere of  comfortable logic.
Did these three really need the money? Did they decide to "let their hair down.?" Can you construe some kind of answer?
It's not that important an issue, really - I'm merely toying with the issue of juxtapositions that possess a less than  symmetrical   form.