At last. Someone's suggesting that maybe The Rolling Stones glory days are behind them by quite a distance:
“I think there’s a point when you’ve got to say, ‘Enough’s enough’. I just think they’re old, they’re old f*rts. I just think they ain’t rock ’n’ roll any more."It's a good point - although arguably they might very well be rock and roll, and it's just rock that has got old and slow and tired.
Tell us, Gordon, who is this young buck calling for the old guard to roll over and let the kids through?
POP loudmouth PETE WATERMAN has blasted THE ROLLING STONES as “old f*rts” who are too ancient to tour.Oh, yes. Young Pete Waterman.
Gordon Smart, of course, is not going to entertain the idea that once creaky old figureheads who've lost their vim should not be allowed to hang around making vast sums of money for subpar performances. Not with his boss.
So he sets about taking apart Waterman's grasp of facts:
The former Pop Idol judge, who managed RICK ASTLEY, ranted: “I’m 66 and I wouldn’t go and play. They’re 76. Them at Glastonbury – not for me."Gordon presses his big red button.
Pete needs to get his facts straight. None of the Stones are near 76.Charlie Watts will be 72 by the time Glastonbury starts, which is fairly near 76. But, to be fair, Ronnie Wood is actually younger than Pete Waterman.
What else you got, Pete?
“You wouldn’t see ANDY WILLIAMS at Glastonbury, would ya?”Gordon, I see you have an objection.
And you’re unlikely to see Andy at Glasto – he died last year.That's a good point, but unfortunately it's the wrong point. Andy Williams was supposed to play Glastonbury in 2010 - when he was 82, and thus older than any of the current Rolling Stones by a good decade - but (presumably due to his failing health) never made it.
And also: seeing Andy Williams play would have been more exciting and vital than the Stones' tax-balanced schtick, surely?