Think of Record Companies as the VC Funds of the rock and roll world. Yeah, it's possible to bootstrap, but why bootstrap when you can get a cash and publicity injection?
The key difference between these artists is marketing.
I would think if the advances are large they could explain why new artists seem so prosperous, where if they were steadily getting royalty checks it would seem like they would have to live modestly at first.
One last step in my query-posed-as-speculation: New artists using the posited advance money would explain why they "brand" themselves using pink vinyl wraps on their Lamborghinis and maybe that sort of branding is important to promotion.
Advances used to be seed funding, but now they're more like later series funding. Artists don't get them until they're up and running as a business, and they're treated more like investor input in exchange for management equity - politically and financially - than free cash.
In a very real sense, the music business pioneered the VC model. If you strip away the glamour from music, there are some very familiar relationships and strategies (and scams) on the business side.
In the past, selling music meant having access to capital equipment (the vinyl presses), access to marketing budgets, and access to the record shop inventories.
Now, music can "pressed" for free by Spotify, Apple Music et all, shelf space is not limited (computer storage is cheap!), and the marketing can be done online more cheaply (I assume).
With all these stories of successful artists in the past (like Erroll Garner) and in the present (like Taylor Swift) being chained by their record companies, why do present day artists sign with a record label?
I'm sure I'm missing some key facet of the business, what is it?