expert jury time to put our ageing rockers out to grass?

Should there be a compulsory retirement age for rock stars?

Matt Snow

Editor, Mojo

Of course there should be no age limit on rock stars. Originally rock acts modelled themselves on middle-aged blues stars such as Chuck Berry and Howling Wolf, which shows how irrelevant age is. The fact that these rock stars are now actually older than their first idols is not important. On the other hand, there should definitely be a weight limit for musicians, which I would fix around about 16 stone. I would argue for a hair-loss limit as well, but it would exclude too many of my favourite acts. The only thing that is important is that rock stars should age in as disgraceful a manner as possible, so I would introduce a quotient of arrestable offences a year.

John Peel

Radio 1 DJ

Well, there are some rather good old rock stars around, though they are in a minority. It would be a shame if Neil Young retired, for instance - he's virtually unique. And Dick Dale too, who I saw recently, is quite amazing. He's 59, which is four years older than me, and he gives a great performance, and really cares about his music. The thing is that rock music has a relatively short history, so we've never come across these ageing rockers before. And after all, people write great plays, great books, great poetry, and perform great acting into old age, so there's no reason rock should necessarily be different. As long as they don't continue to behave like teenagers into their 50s I don't see why they shouldn't continue to earn a living.

Having said that, I wouldn't particularly want to see the Rolling Stones (above) myself, and I have to agree with my chum Andy Kershaw that Bob Dylan hasn't made a decent record in 20 years. But I'm quite happy for them to continue, as long as it's not compulsory to go and see them.

Leesa Daniels

Features Editor, Smash Hits

Definitely! Music will never move on if all our attention is on the sodding Rolling Stones, as it stops us focusing on younger bands. At about the age of 38 or 40 they should be banned, just not allowed to carry on. They shouldn't even have a pension - they should have made all their money by that time.

I can't see Take That still being around at that age as they would be too crinkly, though it would be a shame if Michael Jackson finished. But I don't think that this age limit should apply to journalists!

Adrian Dolmen

TV researcher

Well, I'm only 23, so I am completely sick of all these 1960s has-beens hogging the world's arenas. Rock music is not one of those professions like literature or philosophy where age brings wisdom. It's just a bit embarrassing, isn't it - I mean, what does Mick Jagger think he looks like? I quite like early Stones stuff, but today it makes me cringe. Ideal rock stars are Bolans or Hendrixes who die young and don't reach the menopause.

David Stubbs

Staff writer, Melody Maker

I don't think you should insist on retirement. The problem is that the rock community is getting older and older, and rock is getting closer to jazz in that respect, where age is no barrier. The Rolling Stones will be playing well into their seventies and eighties. On the other hand, I am strongly in favour of the compulsory retirement of mediocre acts at the age of 20.