Swoop In For The Kill") was in the top 20 in the Top 40 of 1979. "Moonlight Feels Right" - #16 ("Moonlight Feels Right" is, of course, a direct rip off of a The Crystals' 1964 hit "He's A Rebel.") "I'm Into Something Good" - #21 ("I'm Into Something Good" also uses the same chord changes as The Crystals' 1960 hit "Da Doo Ron Ron"). "We Close Our Eyes" - #34 ("We Close Our Eyes" is, again, a pastiche of an original song - Billy Joel's 1977 hit "You May Be Right.") "The Wanderer" - #35 ("The Wanderer" is another blatant rip off of the Eagles' 1972 hit "Take It Easy.") So in other words, the entire "A Tear Drop Fell" album is a pastiche of pop songwriting cliches from as far back as the 60's. But then, no matter what was the case, Sutherland was just like Van Halen in the "80's - they would just as soon have their songs written by "The Great Bop." (I used to think "The Great Bop" was just another example of the mythological notion that "rock critics are only a bunch of hipsters, y'know," but I've just come to realize that the "great bop" in "The Great Bop" is not simply a reference to hipsters, it's a reference to being too cheap to hire songwriters to actually do your songs for you.) As far as pop writing cliches go, Sutherland's work may not always be up to the level of their originals - but I don't believe they ever set out to do such a thing. I think they simply like the sound of big, boppy, melodic tunes. And they don't seem to care whether those songs are truly original or not. They may pay lip service to the idea that that the music is all "new," but they don't care. If they can get it in front of a mainstream audience, so much the better, and then they can get back to the biz of making the kind of big, boppy melodic tunes that they like, but that never change. And really, I can see why this "bubblegum" sound might be attractive to a songwriter who has such a history of producing such catchy hooks - and to an audience that wants nothing more than melodic pop that doesn't challenge them. So what's the deal? Well, what's not to like? On both a personal level and from a critical/historical point of view, The Bangles were a great band. But to a degree, The Bangles didn't need the sound. Like The Beatles in the early 60's, their popularity and fame made their sound ubiquitous to a mainstream audience. What once was edgy and distinctive became so much so, that you couldn't just have a band. You had to have a sound. The Beatles had their sound. The Bangles had theirs. It wasn't really the Beatles' sound that was popular, it was just their sound that set them apart from the rest of the pop competition. Likewise, it wasn't really the Bangles' sound that was popular, but rather their sound and music that set them apart from the rest of the competition - even if their sound was pretty much universally emulated by every pop musician thereafter. So with The Bangles, we had the "Bangles sound" with a vengeance - but unlike The Beatles or other musical acts, where it became such a big part of the sound that it's all you remembered about them, The Bangles were a more subtle, nuanced band. They used their sound more as a framework for the kinds of melodic songs they wrote. For example, the band itself was fairly unique and eclectic in the way that, for the most part, they didn't really fit into the two main camps that defined 80's pop and rock music - alternative rock and new wave - yet their music was so rooted in melodic pop that it was indistinguishable from the more conventional melodic rockers. And as a result, Bangles were still more unique and individualistic, regardless of what kind of mainstream pop they were working in. Sometime in the 90's, or perhaps even as late as last year, a number of critics and music historians decided to start talking about the importance of what they called "classic rock" - a term they defined as classic rock being the music of the 60's and 70's that the kids weren't buying in those years, but who they want back in the charts today (and, to be fair, the definition of classic rock has evolved a bit more than that, as newer material and some of the classic stuff from the 80's have been dusted off and made part of the new canon). While their focus on the classic rock from the 60's and 70's was always kind of vague, it at least had the potential to be a pretty interesting look at both music and pop culture. And then in 2007, the magazine I subscribe to started talking about the "classic pop" of the 80's - a time period that I had always viewed as a sort of "no-man's land" in the evolution of pop and rock. But that notion that there was no real "classic pop" was just laughable in retrospect. The Bangles were a part of the "classic pop" phenomenon, even though there was no such thing as "classic pop" at the time. The Bangles were so classic pop - and that's not just because "The Great Bop" was such a big part of their sound, but because they were such a "classic rock" band. They were classic rock in the sense that they were probably the last big American band from the 70's that was still making music. They were a big band that was a part of the bigger scene that wasn't quite alternative, wasn't quite new wave, and wasn't quite the big arena rock acts of the time. In some ways, The Bangles fit into a space of music that was often described by critics as "progressive pop" (but it's hard to see how even critics would describe a band like The Bangles as "progressive," as "progressive" basically meant "weird" or "weirdo" for critics). But in many ways, they were the perfect "classic pop" band for their time - they managed to transcend their original "post-punk/new wave" sound of their early days and found a comfortable home in what might be called the "adult contemporary" genre. So while I've never listened to "A Tear Drop Fell," I will admit that I'm excited by the prospect of having a copy of the album to listen to. And I hope that the songs will be as unique and interesting as the Bangles were in their heyday, regardless of their being a "classic pop" album or not. About Me I am a professional historian, with broad interests and a commitment to public engagement. My current research is on music and politics during the American Civil War, with a focus on veterans' and community contexts. In this role, I hope to inform historical thinking through connecting our personal histories with larger stories, in the hopes that such stories are more deeply engaging and perhaps more accurately remembered. A more detailed professional history can be found at my LinkedIn page.