Perhaps using the song artist's name as an abstract noun in place of "song". I dont really know
Sorry I'm interrupting this, but just my thoughts,
So I think that sentence is perfectly standard in that context. Both the interlocutors (or there may be more, I just haven't counted) are in a favourable and semantically appropriate context to
infer that 'gold' refers to a medal and 'Kevin Bloody Wilson' refers to an artist (also, I don't think it refers to a 'song.' He's a musician, so I think don't mention anything about a 'song'?)
And, also if you think about it otherwise (forget the context), that sentence sounds and
means perfectly standard!
So if I didn't know what was going on, I'd interpret that ok, someone's going to get something really really rewarding and precious just like precious gold (this would be metaphorical), or either they're going to get actual, physical gold, just because they've got the support from Kevin Bloody Wilson.
And if I didn't know who he was, that wouldn't matter at all! I'll just need to infer that Kevin...must be a really cool and invaluable person!
Sorry if all of this sounds really confusing!
But just as a summary : not everything has to be mentioned in a sentence/s to tick the standard box for those. If it's suitable to the context, then it's perfectly standard.
The sentence would've been non-standard if 'Kevin Bloody Wilson' wasn't capitalised (I mean that first letters of every word, because it's a proper noun)
The contraction 'would've' again is that dual-faceted example. I wouldn't call it non-standard, I'd just call it an informal feature. Why? Because it's perfectly 'standard' (appropriate) for the context that they're in --> it's a conversation, people want short, sharp convo, especially on an informal medium.
Once again, please please feel free to choose not to go by what I said, because I do Eng Lang too!!
So I'm never ever perfect
Thanks!