It's true that musicians sort of used to be paid up-front, in the traditional label model where a record company gave a musician a big advance to make an album, and then pocketed most of the actual profits from the sales of that the album (akin to hiring an engineer to build a bridge, then collecting tolls on that bridge). But that's no longer the model for most up-and-coming independent artists, and in any case, that just shifts the royalty-collecting burden to the record companies, who still need to be able to recoup their initial advances.
Another approach, which works well for bridge-building, is that the government just pays some engineers to build a bridge, then lets everyone use the bridge for free. This is like the really old school practice in which a wealthy prince commissions Beethoven to write a string quartet, and once complete that string quartet is then freely available for anyone to perform. As a model for music in the modern world, this would mean socializing the music production business, i.e., taxing everyone the price of a Spotify subscription and pumping that money into NEA grants for artists to record new music, which would then be free for everyone. On the bright side, this would eliminate all worries about piracy and chilling effects from anti-piracy enforcement. But there are also lots of drawbacks, e.g., in this model the decision as to what music should exist would be made, not by the market (as in the indie model), or a profit-oriented record company (as in the label model), but by government bureaucrats whose incentives come from the political process. Of course this could have some good effects (maybe they'd fund fewer Justin Biebers) but IMHO there are serious problems with a system in which an artist's viabilaity is contingent on their staying in the good graces of the government.
Also, just so you know, Pink Floyd is a band, not a person.