Yes, of course. It's no different than startups - if you take on $500,000 debt to start your business (a.k.a. make an album, promote the album), you will be in debt until you sell enough product to pay off said debt.
The best venue for artist to earn money are tours and merchandise.
A good new year's resolution for us all is to "Stop talking about stuff you don't know about as though you have experience with it."
I'm not saying they make lots of lots of money of merchandising and tours, but from what I've gathered they make more of money on those, unless the studio contract takes part of that as well. Basically they earn more money on a merchandise they are on, or a product line they sell than on records.
Your metaphor is more like starting a startup to get famous enough to start another startup to pay the debts of the previous one.
For me as a fan of several groups, the key thing, economically speaking, is that the group is able to work on their music full time, thus maximizing their creative output and therefore, as someone who enjoys what they do, the benefits to me.
If he is making a recording label, I'd avoid him more than the plague.
Here you go the numbers. The High point is your average signed artist gets $23 out of $1000 in sales or 2.3%.
Yes, it is true that big-label acts made most of their money from touring and merchandise. My point is that that fact does not translate to smaller-time indie artists.
A lot of people tend to improperly point to the RIAA practices (of capturing most of the licensing/royalty pie), and use it to make the case that indie musicians should also not expect any revenue from their product and instead focus on touring and merchandise. It's a self-serving argument from those that are in favor of "free" streaming music. In other words, there's a difference between claiming that RIAA has historically captured most of that pie, and claiming that the pie doesn't exist.
Fan of irony I see.