Greatest living Briton: Wilson on the hustings

While, as I think was established beyond reasonable doubt earlier this week, the nomination of Robbie Williams for The Sun's Greatest Living Briton was a bit of a joke, you could make something of an argument for Paul McCartney at least being seriously considered.

Trouble is, they've invited Ricky Wilson to promote his cause, which leaves McCartney not that seriously considered:

FOR those among you who are unaware, Paul McCartney used to be in a band called The Beatles, who played out of Liverpool.

Hahahahahahahaha. Did you see that? That's yer actually drollery, that is.

During his time with the group they changed the face of popular music, wrote some of the world’s most recognisable tunes and inspired generations of kids to form bands and make music.

He says that last bit like its inarguably a good thing. If it wasn't for the Beatles, the Pigeon Detectives - by their own admission - would have been putting their efforts into playing football.

To be a critic of The Beatles and what they achieved is to be a knob-head.

Wilson can be expecting the call from Tory central office pretty soon with this level of rhetoric. The Beatles, certainly, made some actually, truly memorable music. They also knocked off a fair bit of so-so stuff. But to suggest that only a "knob-head" could even consider any criticism - like the nasty taint of racism that hangs over some of their studio work, for example; or the slightly Madonnaesque films; the subsequent solo careers; even their part in the creation of a music industry where the photos are as important than the records. Even the bloody Look-In "Story of The Beatles" comic strip I read when I was a kid managed to slip in a few critical frames into the hagiography.

I have met people who claim not to like the band. Most of them do this purely for effect (and will usually try to convince you that their favourite, obscure Sixties band Snake-legs were far superior).

Actually, there are some people who are left cold by The Beatles. And, frankly, nearly everyone I've ever met who likes The Beatles argues with more passion that other bands were better.

For me this only helps to solidify the truth. The Beatles were, and are, the greatest band ever.

What helps solidify the "truth"? You've effectively just said "because I think you're a knob-head if you disagree with me, and I don't believe people who disagree with me, makes me even more convinced that I'm right" - that's not evidence, unless you're being prosecuted by Kafka.

Other critics of Paul McCartney often try to belittle the role he had in The Beatles. To have one great songwriter in a band is a good thing, to have two is lucky, to have more than that is phenomenal.

And a group full of great musicians and songwriters can only help to make a better band.

We seem to have slipped from trying to argue that McCartney is better than Julie Andrews and Thatcher, and started to try and defend Ringo as a songwriter.

"Having people who can play their instruments and write songs makes a good band" is blindingly obvious and somewhat meaningless in trying to determine if Paul McCartney is a great man.

You would think that when The Beatles came to a close Paul McCartney would want to put his feet up. But, like all great musicians, it seems that making music is just something he HAS to do, and something he has done ever since.

Yes. Can you imagine how he would have tossed and turned, unsettled and unfulfilled, had the theme from Spies Like Us been left unwritten?

Whether it be with his post-Beatles band Wings, or as a solo artist, he has continued to write fantastic tunes.

And some absolute clunkers. In fact, probably more clunkers than fantastic tunes. (I probably can't convince Wilson on this one; maybe I should add '... and if you say not, you smell.')

The nomination of any other musician in the Greatest Living Briton category is nothing but a joke.

Aha! Common ground. If this is a pop at Robbie Williams. Although we'd suggest David Bowie has more right to be here, for although he shares many of Macca's faults, he surely has a more interesting hinterland, and a better back catalogue.

I tried to think of anyone else non-musical deserving of the label and I honestly can’t think of anyone who doesn’t sound silly next to Paul McCartney.

Really? Tony Benn? Sarah Tisdall? David Attenborough? Eric Sykes? Steven Hawking? Richard Dawkins? Shirley Bassey?

I believe that to be Greatest Living Briton you should be self-made, but at the same time not do what you do simply for personal gain. I know that his music has made him a very rich man, but it certainly isn’t the reason he gets up in the morning.

Is this entirely true? Many of the post-Beatle activities of the Beatles have seemed to involved trying to scrape in money, and it's certainly arguable, although not, perhaps, provable that the publicity surrounding his divorce could have been avoided if he hadn't been so keen to hold on to so much of his money quite so tightly.

Outside music Paul McCartney has been able to use the fame and respect he has earned for many noteworthy causes.

He is well known for his animal rights work and anti-landmine campaign, as well as for putting his weight behind the Make Poverty History campaign, Live Aid, Band Aid and many, many others.

Hasn't he pulled out of the landmine thing now?

You also get the feeling that everything he does is genuine, not to increase his popularity or sales.

Well, that's true. The whole fighting with his own publicist for having publicised him thing was purely to add to the gaiety of nations.

He continues to make music not to fulfil any contracts or prove he’s still the best. He simply does it because he wants to — always the best reason.

He's not the best, Ricky, he's simply in a position where anything he does - Give My Regards To Broad Street - will find an audience simply because of his profile.