twansalem 01/02/2009
None of the above. Save the money and stay at home.
Helpful
Funny
Agree
Disagree
fitman 11/24/2008
Unless this deal comes with a time machine, I'll pass.
irishgit 11/24/2008
Since seeing the Beatles with just Paul and Ringo might leave a bit to be desired, as would the Who without Moon or Entwistle, I'll go with the Stones.
Besides, I missed the Tutankamen mummy exhibit at the museum.....
HistoryFan 11/24/2008
The Beatles, no doubt.
Vicki9121819 10/30/2008
The worlds greatest rock n roll band which is the rolling stones i never liked the beatles at all yack!
shestolemyjell o 05/27/2008
Thats a tough decision for me. I love both the Beatles and the Stones. I'd be ecstatic with either.
FranksWildYear s 05/26/2008
Front row centre at a Beatles concert would have meant being among a throng of screaming pre-teen girls, and not hearing a note. Being that close and seeing Keith Richards close up would likely give me nightmares for months. Sitting up front, right in the middle, between the giant stacks of amps at a Who show might actually be like being in the calm eye of the hurricane and you'd be able to hear. Of course you'd be well advised to wear safety goggles for when stuff starts to blow up.
madamedragonli ly 06/09/2006
It would have to be the Beatles. Or the Rolling Stones would be a great choice too. The Who would be awesome also. Tough question.
trebon1038 01/21/2006
Beatles by far....then the Who. I like the stones, but like the others better!
Molfan 12/22/2005
I am assuming that the Beatles are all still alive for this. I would pick them . I like their music and would be nostalgic for me to see them. I would not mind seeing the Rolling Stones either. even the Who would be nice. it would make for some good memories.
Wavebacker 12/21/2005
Put me in the Way Back Machine circa 1960's and I'd have to say The Beatles. Dont get me wrong, I LOVE The Rolling Stones, but have an appreciation for the Beatles and would have loved to have seen them up close and personal live.
souljunkie 12/21/2005
Beatles without so much as a blink. They were much better players and had more musical depth than both these bands in their day. The other two represent a different time when rock and roll and musicianship in the genre had changed and become more developed. In the few years from '63 - '66-67 sound technologhy changed in leaps and bounds too, allowing for live applications in much bigger venues. There was more freestyle writing going on which allowed for more improvisation. The beatles were a "song writing machine" and made popular music what it is. The Stones were doing relatively the same thing in another genre (more blues and r&b influences)and The Who would not have been on the map at all without the other two.
zuchinibut 12/21/2005
Stones!
PzKpfw VI E 12/21/2005
The Beatles, simply because I have grown up with my father's love for the Beatles my whole life. I can't tell you how many times I heard the entire St. Peppers' album before I was able to contemplate what the words actually meant.
frogio 12/21/2005
I'd take the ticket to any one of the shows...and sell it for double to the first person in a walker.
GenghisTheHun 12/21/2005
The Beatles. Evidently you will be able to see the stones until about 2050.
Djahuti 12/21/2005
Stones-hands down!
oscargamblesfr o 12/21/2005
Beatles in a landslide, though the other 2 would make great consolation prizes.
Donovan 12/21/2005
The Beatles for sure!
Drummond 12/21/2005
Beattles, though I'd be happy with any of the three (when they were all alive).
louiethe20th 12/21/2005
Beatles in a no brainer if they are all alive at the time.
21 reviews! « Previous | Page of 1 | Next »
Sort by Newest Oldest Most helpful Least helpful Highest rated Lowest rated