This is a very tough question to answer. There are some bassists who don't get a lot of admiration for their bass parts because the lines they create are pretty simple. Still, they're often members of very successful bands with very popular songs. So, their simple bass parts don't seem to be inhibiting the success of their bands or the popularity of their music. Similarly, it's not clear that their bands or music would be more popular if they played more complicated bass parts.
For example, Francis Buchholz played bass for the Scorpions from their second album all the way through their most popular period. During their popular phase, his bass lines were very simple and straightforward. However, if you go back and listen to earlier Scorpions music, you'll hear bass lines that are much more complex. It's not clear if Francis specifically simplified things to become more commercial - maybe this was the direction the band chose to take overall. It's similar with Michael Anthony of Van Halen or Adam Clayton of U2 - they can definitely play, but they didn't always do so. Still, did they do a good job of serving the songs and respective bands? Yes.
At the other end of the spectrum, you'd have someone like Jaco, who redefined his instrument and role to be something completely different. He's very well respected, especially by other bassists and jazz fans, but he's a relatively minor musician in the broader culture. Could you argue that Jaco was more artistically than commercially motivated? Perhaps.
I think that most of us strive to be somewhere in the middle. We want to be part of something that is reasonably well received (aka popular) but also creatively solid - something where we can add a little of ourselves to the music. In terms of people who may come to mind, I think we'd like to be Geddy Lee, John Entwistle or John Paul Jones. Bassists who are known for being great musicians, who write unique lines, and play in successful bands. Still, that's easier said than done.
