Columnist Scott Dickensheets: Hound dog vs. hepcat — Elvis or Frank?

Scott Dickensheets

Friday, June 5, 1998 | 10:03 a.m.

LISTS ARE fun and simpleminded, which is why journalists love them. Organizing your material is a breeze; the format does the thinking for you. Once you settle on a theme, the rest is simple eeny-meeny-miney-moe.

Naturally, the more ambitious your list, the more heated the criticism of your choices -- exactly the point! Which brings us to the current issue of Time magazine, specifically its grandiose list of the century's 20 most influential artists and entertainers.

It's certainly ambitious and definitely argument-ready: Why Aretha Franklin instead of Billie Holiday? Why Oprah instead of Johnny? Why Bart Simpson at all?

But the real heavyweight bout is Sinatra vs. Elvis. The story behind the story: According to reports, Elvis had made the original list; Sinatra had not. However, Mike Wallace of "60 Minutes" was so incensed he pitched a cell-phone fit to Time's brass. Caught between rock and a hardhead, they gave in. Elvis was clubbed from the list and dumped into a sidebar; Frank got the full write-up instead.

Right or wrong? Let's ask the experts, and I don't mean music scholars. Let's ask celebrity impersonators.

Elvis imitator Brendan Paul of Las Vegas reacted with a burst of exclamation points. "Elvis isn't in the Top 20? Oh my gosh! Wow! That's sad, really. I'm shocked!" Part of it is professional, of course -- any tremor in Elvis worship has potential career ramifications.

But he's genuinely upset that his man is getting short shrift. "I'd put him in the Top 5 -- of any list! He loosened up America." Gave kids a voice and an identity and a swagger. "Elvis was their own," he says.

"If Sinatra knocked him out, that can't be helped," says Sinatra imitator Duke Hazlett by phone from Atlantic City. He gives Elvis his due, but thinks Sinatra touched more people. "He helped people who couldn't say what they wanted to say, say it," he says. And there's something to be said for the span of Frank's career -- the '30s into the '90s -- vs. Elvis' 20-odd years. So, to the crucial either-or question, Hazlett answers, "I would go with Frank Sinatra."

Brendan Paul: "I'd have to go with Elvis Presley."

Well, me too, Brendan. Look around -- we live in a rock 'n' roll culture. Even as our ears still ring with Sinatra tributes, the forces unleashed by Elvis have carried the day, trumping Sinatra. Elvis embodied so much that's still with us, good or bad -- the vitality of youth culture (he paved the way for Bart Simpson to be on that list); the intertwined fabulousness and misery of celebrity; the appropriation of black culture for white entertainment; the risk of eating a pound of bacon at a time. The rock 'n' roll aesthetic underpins much of our culture, from music to fashion to movies to consumerism -- it sells us everything from sneakers to software. This is Elvis' world, all right, we just buy stuff in it.

Which isn't to minimize Sinatra's immense artistry or his cultural impact on men who still believe in pocket hankies. But you have to wonder: If his influence eclipsed Elvis', where are the Flying Sinatras?

It shouldn't have come to this. Even with Time's strict nose count, there must have been room on the list for Elvis. Toss Jim Henson overboard! "I would have both in," says Paul Grein, a pop culture expert from L.A. "Elvis and Sinatra are the top two solo artists of the century. Time could have played with the list."

Yes, they could have. But then again, where's the fun in that?