Ok, this was my recollection on the topic so I was trying to google up some proof. What I found was
which is close enough to what I remembered which isn’t completely the same as saying that he hated his lyrics but along similar lines.
As for now I can’t say which is more accurate so I’ll pull my Zappa objection.
I would say that Rush doesn’t really care what anyone else wants–they put out what they want to put out, and have been for most of their career.
I think David Bowie is an interesting example. In the 1960s he went out of his way to appeal to the public, he was ready and eager to appeal to a mass audience, and that never really left him. It’s just that throughout the 1970s he had a knack of either picking trends that were a few years down the line or twisting existing trends into new forms. At the time of the Berlin-era stuff he really did believe that he had stumbled on the future of music, whereas a man who didn’t care what the audience thought would…
I was going to say “would have reverted back to his original musical passion and never deviated from that”, but in the case of Bowie I have to wonder what was there, underneath the pursuit of fame and glory. Bowie seemed to exist for an audience, I suspect that when he was at home in the 1970s he simply took some heroin and went to sleep, there was no him underneath the artifice.
I’ll quote myself, from a blog post I wrote shortly after attending the David Bowie Is exhibition last year:
"On an artistic level there is an irony to his career. He was willing, eager to sell out during the 1960s, but there were no takers. By the 1970s he seems to have been sincerely driven by the magnificent power of rock spectacle, and latterly by a genuine fascination with American pop culture and European art music. Although he went out of his way to promote Heroes, none of his Berlin-period records sold in great numbers, and it’s hard to believe that they were intended to be chart smashes. He seems to have believed that Tangerine Dream and Neu! were the future, but not that they were a gateway to massive record sales.
If Bowie had simply been a cynical opportunist, Low would have been a disco record, Scary Monsters would have had a mixture of punk and reggae tracks, Young Americans would have been full of mellow, Eagles-esque country ballads, Never Let Me Down would have been wall-to-wall house music, Earthling would have sounded like Parklife-era Blur, all fake cockney accents and songs about cockney gangsters."
The first name that sprung to mind on seeing the topic was Lou Reed, though. And Frank Zappa. They both seemed to have utter contempt for their audience and everybody, and were amused that people flocked to them. With Lou Reed it was actually funny and endearing, and I wonder if it was a put-on (viz his famous interview with Lester Bangs - he could have simply had Bangs thrown out, but there was something about the fight that appealed to him).
Devo strike me as a melancholic example of a band that originally didn’t care what the audience thought - going so far as to play half-hour renditions of “Jocko Homo” - but they quickly came to the conclusion that they needed money to live, hence their post-1981 career.
The Jesus and Mary Chain. They famously went out of their way to antagonise the audience at their early concerts, and their first couple of singles sounded like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnO41-rKUsc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2bzrCCKDwc
DRUMS! SCREEEEE! mumble-mumble, ah-ha-ha SCREEE! SCREEE! etc. The rest of the shoegaze movement was famously uninterested in the audience and indeed the whole of the 1980s C86 scene had a curious “we love the fans but have our credibility to think of” attitude.
To which I’ll add this. If you play it at work you deserve what you get.
Van Morrison?
Oh, GG Allin then. If you have to google him, spoiler: it involves feces.
Maybe Anal Cunt, but that might’ve been trolling, and they did care that they piss people off.
Celine Dion, John Tesh and Michael Bolton. They take abuse from hipsters every day but don’t seem to give a F*ck. 
When it comes right down to it, it’s meaningless to say that someone engaged in performance of some kind doesn’t care what you think. There’s no way to separate performing arts of any kind without some kind of interest in the impact on the audience. Otherwise you wouldn’t bother to let anyone see it.
I am surprised no one has mentioned The Residents.
What do I win?
I don’t remember if I made this up or heard it somewhere but I heard this applied to baseball players that say “I don’t do this for the money, I do it for the love of the sport” the reply being "okay, what if we pay you a liveable, but still good salary, say $70,000 a year, it’s not televised, there’s no audience and it’s basically just like any other job? How much longer will you keep playing baseball? Basically, if there’s no fame or fortune, how long will you keep playing…for the love of the game? "
You’re kidding, right? Since the early '80s they have been trying to sound like whatever is popular at the moment. Counterparts is the most blatant example of this. That’s not caring what the masses think?
Honestly, I imagine almost all of them would take you up on your offer. Especially if the alternative is “If you say no, you don’t get to play baseball anymore.”
Authenticity can be an excellent long-term marketing strategy.
I second Bob Dylan. Lots of people were angry about his appearance in the Chrysler “rah rah America” Superbowl ad, the idea being that the Bob Dylan of times past wouldn’t have done something like that in a million years. I disagree. He’s his own person; even in the early 60s, he didn’t like being called the “voice of a generation” - he just wanted to be the voice of himself. He holds the distinction of having pissed off pretty much every segment of the population sometime in his life.
so I tried to respond to this the other day and kept erroring out, I love the feedback as well as the debates.
Talk Talk, especially Mark Harris. They literally turned their back on commercial success to follow their own musical ambitions and completely changed their style. Unfortunately they had little commercial success doing so.
I saw David Bowie mentioned above and thought the same thing: he desperately wanted to be famous, stumbled around trying to find his voice and did in the 70’s, but really blew up in the 80’s when Nile Rodgers produced Let’s Dance and Bowie had a string of commercial hits. When he got rich, he didn’t have to give a f*ck nearly as much 
Given that “DJ Ninja” (or Watkin Tudor Jones, as his mother would know him) went through several incarnations, such as the besuited Max Normal, before hitting on his current successful formula of ripping off the aesthetic of genuine Afrikaans rappers crossed with artschool cliches, I’d say no, they very much care what you think.
I heard a radio interview years ago where callers would ask him questions. He basically refused to give any answers.
One caller asked about what one of his songs was about/what inspired him to write it. He kinda dismissed the whole question with a, “You don’t even need to worry about it.”
I don’t think Miles Davis gave a fuck, either. “First I’m gonna play, then I’m gonna tell you about it. Maybe.”
Karlheinz Stockhausen.
Was once quoted as saying, “Why should anyone want to understand my music. I’m not sure I understand it myself.”