Glastonbury 2013: Throwing Stones

Are The Rolling Stones too old to play Glastonbury?

Of course not. What a stupid question.

Or, rather, what an interesting question to focus on rather than the surely more important one about if they're too far past their creative peak; or too ill-fitting, as a stadium dinosaur in what used to be a smarter festival than that; or too tax-exiley for a gathering that used to have a heart.

But, instead, let's focus on if they're too old. What do you think, Keith Richards?

They have an average age of 69 with some saying they are too old to play.

"I'd say, 'What do you know about it? You've never tried it'," laughs the band's guitarist Keith Richards.

"It's good for your health to play rock'n'roll in a clean living band like The Rolling Stones. You should try it. It's better than church."

Very droll. I suspect Brian Jones might raise an objection to that thesis, but having been dead for four decades he probably won't.

There is a weird sense hanging over the booking, like it's been driven by a desire to complete a line on a bingo card rather than any artistic reasons. Richards seems to confirm this:

"It just never occurred. Many times it has been on the list of tours and stuff and for one reason or another it never coincided," explains Keith Richards in an exclusive interview with Newsbeat ahead of Glastonbury.

"[It's] like a black hole in space or something but in we go this time.

"I'm looking forward to it because it is an iconic gig and it's an iconic band and finally the two meet at last.

"In a way it's kind of weird that at last we've made it to Glastonbury. It's like building Stonehenge right?"

It's a crossover event. But it feels more like the Dukes Of Hazzard/Alice crossover rather than, say, the Cybermen taking on the Borg.