I am sorry but this is completely false.
All artist contracts in the 90s stated the label would pay upfront, but all costs would be recouped from future album sales and touring profits before the artist saw a dime.
The labels didnt take a chance on anything, they heavily covered their asses by monumental contracts which were very famously difficult to get out of once signed.
If the label contracts were structured as loans that had to be repaid, I agree with "completely false".
But if, as I suspect, most contracts were structured as advances, then if the musician was successful, you could look at it as the musician just having gotten a loan.
But, famously, most musicians aren't very successful, and they aren't in general asked to pay back their studio time.
So I don't think "completely false" is a reasonable response to "the label paid for studio time".
I am sorry but this is completely false. All artist contracts in the 90s stated the label would pay upfront, but all costs would be recouped from future album sales and touring profits before the artist saw a dime. The labels didnt take a chance on anything, they heavily covered their asses by monumental contracts which were very famously difficult to get out of once signed.