The other day, as I was cleaning out my home office, I found a stack of ticket stubs from late 1980s and early 1990s concerts that I had attended as a teenager. This says more than I would like about my age, as well as the state of my home office. But it also says a lot about the live music business.

Related What Bruce Springsteen Can Teach the Music Business About Superfandom Just in Time For Valentine's Day, Spotify Shares Which Love-Themed Lyrics From Taylor Swift, Djo and HUNTR/X Are Most Shared Live Nation Launches 'Next On' Program for Emerging Artists in Australia and New Zealand

The ticket stubs sparked memories. There was the first concert I ever saw, Rush, in spring 1986, on the Power Windows Tour, at the Brendan Byrne Arena. (Imagine a time when venues were named for public figures rather than dubious crypto companies!) From two years later, the first Grateful Dead show I saw, at the same venue, where a friend of mine rapturously told me how amazing it was to see live music under the stars, even though we were indoors. Then, from a month and a half later, my first of many Bruce Springsteen shows, at Madison Square Garden. And from a month and a half after that, my first Bob Dylan concert, at the very beginning of his Never Ending Tour.

Then came the sticker shock: Rush had cost $15.50; the Dead, who I would go on to see about a dozen times between then and 1993, $17.50; Springsteen, then at the peak of his popularity, $22.50. My ticket for the Rolling Stones‘ 1989 Steel Wheels Tour cost $30 — a lot of money for the college kid I was at the time! — and the high prices prompted Rolling Stone magazine to ask in a subhead, “How Much money does the Rolling Stones need?” Oh, my sweet summer child….

The difference is not quite as stark as it seems. Those Rush and Springsteen tickets would now cost about $45, once you consider inflation — the Stones ticket $77. Still, though. The cheapest tickets I could see for Rush’s 2026 tour cost $175 — and prices went up from there. Ticket prices for the upcoming Springsteen tour haven’t been announced, but they will range in price from $75 to $400, according to reports. The other big difference is that, in 1988, as a high school senior, I had a chance of scoring good seats by waiting in line. These days, concerts are priced like airline flights, based on some calculation of demand, with an array of prices for a variety of kinds of status. And this assumes that you can see your favorite artist without paying to travel to Las Vegas, Munich or New York.

Related Will Adele Have the Biggest Concerts on Earth?

These changes in the concert business have been great for promoters and performers. But, as I started thinking when I spoke about the concert business on the Vox podcast “Today, Explained,” they are turning concerts from a regular form of entertainment for young people into an occasional indulgence for superfans or the wealthy. People have become obsessed with the fairness of this, which is a bit silly: Fans wouldn’t pay these prices if they didn’t feel they were worth it, and there are plenty of things not everyone can afford, including, sadly, good health care. But it’s worth asking how the rise in concert prices — both generally and especially at the high end, where some shows involve travel of some kind — will affect the live business, as well as the music business as a whole.

My old ticket stubs show what’s been lost. Concerts were special enough that I saved some of the tickets but affordable enough that I could afford to attend them with the money I made at various teenage jobs. (Including a stint as a clerk at Coconuts.) In 1989, as a college student, I was able to see Elvis Costello, Dylan, at least two Grateful Dead shows, Tom Petty, the Who, the Rolling Stones, Billy Joel and at least a half dozen shows from which I didn’t save tickets. I paid for all of this myself, although I was able to do so partly because my parents covered other expenses. That wouldn’t be possible today. Traveling to one big festival or show might cost more than all of those shows together.

This is just another example of how the biggest stars dominate the market for live entertainment, and if fans would rather spend money on one big show than a dozen smaller ones, that’s up to them. It’s also making concertgoing a rare treat rather than a regular thing, like live theatre. Behavior always evolves, of course — people used to see movies in theaters all the time, and now it’s usually an occasional thing. But eventually, I think this will make touring harder for acts that aren’t at the peak of their careers, as well as for some venues, although you certainly don’t see it in the numbers now.

Related Concert Residencies in Big Cities Are Here to Stay. That’s Great for Artists — What About Fans?

The biggest risk is that people just get out of the habit of going to concerts, much as they got out of the habit of seeing films in theaters a few generations ago. The money spent might continue to grow, but a higher share would go to a relatively small number of superstars. Presumably, they will deserve it. But it could be harder for emerging acts to build a dedicated audience or make money on the road. Even superstars could have trouble thriving once they’re past their commercial peak.

Here’s where I’d like to offer some kind of solution to this, but I just don’t have one. It would be naïve to expect the biggest stars to charge less for the vague benefit of the overall business. (That said, I do think it’s worth encouraging artists to keep some tickets inexpensive, so fans can at least get into the arena.) But the idea that teenagers go to concerts with money from summer jobs is a relatively recent one, and it may not last. And that could change the entire music business.