Uh oh ... seems like I did not nearly put enough smilies in that sentence ...

It WAS meant tongue-in-cheek.
So NO, I am not denigrating anybody. Even as a simple onlooker on that part of music history, I do know that securing a steady studio job did mean much more regular and predictable working hours AND better pay than with many touring bands, even "name" bands. All quite understandable and all very well. It just is a pity that a lot of those men were lost to the creative aspects of jazz that way.
But now that the subject has come up, let me mention one thing anyhow:
Backing genuine touring acts in the studio such as e.g. in New Orleans R&B (with its supply of studio musicians - such as Earl Palmer - for many chart and touring acts) was one thing as those musicians were part of a living and vibrant musical style and therefore close to the pulse of the music being made by regular touring bands (so Earl Palmer, Lee Allen, etc. certainly aren't what I would have referred to as being "buried in the studios"), but how does this compare to musical jacks of all trades (read: musicians turning out literally any style at the push of a button) in Hollywood or other major studios quite a bit further removed from what you might call the center of R'n'R/R&B recording action of those times?
There may have been a lot of relatively renowned studio musicians, maybe with former jazz credentials, who'd do e.g. orchestra arrangements churned out by the majors to cash in on covers of the originals done maybe on some indie label. Sure, no doubt those studio musicians were technically perfect in their craft, but really, did they at all times and in all settings have the immediacy, spontaneity and urgency that would have made them play their hearts out in the same credible manner as the creators of the originals (or those really deeply rooted in that particular musical style) did? To put it bluntly, that studio orchestra backing up e.g. the McGuire Sisters doing a whitewashed cover of some R&B original for mass pop consumption may have been technically perfect but was it THE REAL THING? Not in a zillion years - it was what even in English has become known as "ersatz" (a substitute of the real thing) and, hence, a hack job. And believe me - I AM familiar with quite a bit of that part of music history because - if only for historical curiosity's sake and on the lookout for collector's obscurities - I've listened to a lot of those borderline acts hovering on the edges of 50s R&B and R'n'R and usually backed up by studio orchestras no doubt often staffed with former jazzmen who had opted for the security of the studios. (Understandably do, but as far as their output in those "cover record" styles was concerned, it was just an imitation compared to those really ROOTED in the style of the originals - technical proficiency notwithstanding). Do you really think it is a coincidence that a tongue-in-cheek compilation of that kind of 50s R'n'R/R&B imitation music reissued some years ago was called "Rockin' is NOT our Business" ?
It's a bit like some Hollywood studio orchestra normally associated with backing pop crooners all of a sudden recreating "The Greatest Hits of Duke Ellington". How would this stand up with jazz collectors, I ask you?
If you'd really care to see music history from THAT side of the fence (obviously the opposite of those involved in the production of such music), may I suggest you check out "The Restless Generation" by Pete Frame for your reading - a highly interesting book on how rock music "changed the face of 1950s Britian" - and he DOES dwell on the problem of many a rock act's performance being literally ruined by studio musicians who played technically competent enough but often simply without the proper feel for the idiom, which in turn resulted in a lot of those 45s being just pale imitations of their "live" sound - but it was that "stage sound" that the teenage audience expected finding on the records of their pop heroes. And going by all aural evidence I have little reason to believe the situation was all different in the USA e.g. when it came to pop covers of R&B songs.
BTW, most of the guys on that list AREN'T obscure to ME, but not because they may have been with Frank DeVol, Gordon Jenkins or any other 50s studio orchestra but because of their presence in those orchestras that actually made it into jazz discographies and jazz record collections.

Just my 2c (on the other side of the coin), and with all due respect ...