It’s bothered me for a while now that my Very Serious Reviews so far weigh heavily towards the positive, the average rating that I give being four-and-a-half out of five stars. To correct this, I decided I’d review my Most Hated Song of All Time: TLC‘s 1995 chart-topping hit “Waterfalls”. Along with evening-out my stats, this review satisfies my goal of thematically tying together my Very Serious entries for this week, the theme being “Things That Girls Like.”*
But this review isn’t about girls liking TLC, it’s about me despising that trite, overdone, sickening public-service-announcement of a song.** The mere thought of the song produces fits of nausea, so you can imagine what happens when circumstance is cruel enough that I actually hear it. Unfortunately, preparation for this review required that I not only hear the song multiple times, but also that I read the lyrics. Suffice to say, I’m feeling pretty vitriolic by now.
Musically, “Waterfalls” epitomizes “uninspired.” 1970s-style funky guitar, bass and keyboard grooves– typical for R&B and hip-hop songs of the era– overlay supremely standard sequencer beats. By adding an annoyingly sentimental horns track, the producers accomplished the feat of lifting the song out of R&B to plant it squarely in Pop. As far as lyrics go, the song is more or less a cautionary tale. Actually, it’s two cautionary tales; one about the dangers of drug dealing and another about the ultimate cost of sexual promiscuity.
In Verse One, we’re told the story of a loving single mother who worries about her drug-dealing son. They don’t say the words “drug” or “dealing” in the song, but the video spells out for us: making his money “the best way he knows how” involves the son bringing a small brown paper bag to a street-corner meeting with a menacing group of guys (one of whom is played by Bokeem Woodbine) who kill him with an invisible gun, steal the bag and leave his “body laying cold in the gutter.” There isn’t anything especially notable about the verse, which isn’t saying much about it, other than that it comes out cleaner than Verse Two.
Here’s a plot summary of Verse Two: A guy has sex with a girl, who gives him HIV. If only the lyrics were that succinct. Instead, the verse is composed of a convoluted succession of seemingly-unsequenced statements that gradually coalesce into a subject-skewing narrative.
Parsing this verse– especially the first half– is maddening. Is “little precious” a reference to the guy or the girl? Common sense tells me it’s the girl, but lyrics are confusing on this part. In any case, one of the pair has a “natural obsession for temptation,” which must be a nice way of saying “nymphomania” but it just doesn’t sit well with me syntactically; as with much of the song, it reads like a fumbled translation of a foreign language. Okay, so she gives him “lovin’ that his body can’t handle” (in the long run, that is; i.e.: an incurable immune deficiency virus), which he naively mistakes as beneficial for him. One day he suddenly discovers his own poor health, and the verse culminates with “three letters” taking him “to his final resting place.” The letters, of course, are not “SUV” and the resting place isn’t a room at the Ritz-Carlton.
I don’t have anything against HIV awareness, but the way the message was presented in “Waterfalls” was heavy-handed and hackneyed, even for the mid-nineties. It pandered to contemporary hyper-concerned parents and cause-seeking teen would-be vote-rockers, but talked around the subject just enough to avoid making any kind of vaguely political statement. And don’t try to sell me anything about “artistic” and “subtlety,” because I won’t buy it. It’s blurriness is transparent and its banality is exceptional.
There’s one more way in which Verse Two suffers: as it progresses you develop an intense feeling of anxiety about the future, but can’t figure out why. A chorus later, the source of your fear reveals itself as Lisa “Left Eye” Lopes‘ obligatory drivelous rap part, full of appeals to God and nonsensical platitudes such as “Dreams are hopeless aspirations in hopes of coming true.” Her flow is cloned from the , but with a voice sounding like an ancient weather vane on a long-abandoned barn creaking in a light breeze. Don’t get me wrong; I do say “one love” and look to the sky every time her name is mentioned, and hope she’s having a good time hanging out with , , , and Princess Di.*** But I can’t pretend that her rapping abilities resemble anything close to real talent.
You may be surprised to hear that the litany of criticism you’ve read so far doesn’t deal with the biggest problem of TLC’s “Waterfalls”. I’ve been saving the best (read: “worst”) for last. So, with no further ado: What the fuck does “chasing waterfalls” mean? Seriously, the premise of the song’s chorus transcends ridiculousness. I know, I know… it’s some kind of metaphor. But metaphors are supposed to have at least a modicum of internal logic. “Don’t go chasing waterfalls”? How can you chase something that stays in one place?
I suppose they were trying to distinguish the song from ‘s 1980 track of the same name that opens with the line “Don’t go jumping waterfalls.” But if they were going to rip off McCartney’s totally-sensible song (which, by the way, is a much better song and has a better video), they should have done it wholesale instead of producing the gibberish they’ve so graciously bestowed upon civilization. Alternatively, they could have taken his line “Don’t go chasing polar bears”, another good piece of advice from a man who actually knows how to write a song. Another model they might have used, at least if they had a time machine to travel into the future, is ‘s hilarious spoof “Phony Calls“, which also offers sound, logical advice.
“Waterfalls” was a cheap attempt to sell parent-approved records to average teenagers. To the detriment of us all, it worked. The single sold over a million copies in the U.S., it achieved high rankings in twenty-two different charts from sixteen countries, and the song and video had major rotation in their respective media. Perhaps if it wasn’t so ubiquitous I wouldn’t hate it so much. Somehow, I doubt it. Just a single listening would probably still have cemented it as my Most Hated Song of All Time.
——————————————
*This doesn’t include, for reasons that should be obvious, the A Very Serious American Hero podcasts.
**To clarify: This is a review of the song, the video being relegated to a role as reference material.
***In an underground bunker, secretly pulling the strings of international politics and economics.
→ 25 comments so far ↓
1
Donovan
// Feb 3, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Jake, Waterfalls rules. You should stick to the podcasts and the merch booths you’re used to…
2
thadd
// Feb 3, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Jake, I am with you. That song is a pile of shit.
3
peteg
// Feb 3, 2009 at 2:03 pm
yeah, eff that song
4
phil
// Feb 3, 2009 at 2:09 pm
I don’t like the central message of the song, that you shouldn’t chase waterfalls. Telling you to play it safe! What kind of song is that? Go hard or go home!
5
slin
// Feb 3, 2009 at 8:19 pm
i love this. great review. five stars. can’t say the same for the song though.
6
Stefan
// Feb 4, 2009 at 8:33 pm
I agree with Donovan… I too always liked that song. When it came on MTV the last time, my wife and I sang along to it… out loud… yes, it’s THAT good!
And “vitriolic”? “modicum”? Seems like someone found out about the Thesaurus function in MSWord…
“…convoluted succession of seemingly-unsequenced statements that gradually coalesce into a subject-skewing narrative…”? Come on man… seriously?
7
jake
// Feb 4, 2009 at 10:39 pm
What’s wrong with it? I know, I know… I probably should have said “gradually coalescing into” instead of “that gradually coalesce into”, but give me a break; it’s been over a decade since college.
Would you have preferred “komplizierte Abfolge von scheinbar durcheinander bringen-Erklärungen, die nach und nach zusammen in ein Thema-Verzerrungen Erzählung”?
8
phil
// Feb 5, 2009 at 9:20 am
I agree with Jake about the song but I agree with Stefan about the book words.
9
jake
// Feb 5, 2009 at 9:41 am
Yeah, I have a tendency to get book-wordy and am trying curb it.
Challenge for Phil: rewrite the phrase quoted above in a way that maintains the exact meaning but has a smaller word (and/or letter) count.
10
phil
// Feb 5, 2009 at 10:10 am
Book words are a crutch. You don’t need a 10-cent word if there’s a 5-cent word that works.
for “modicum” try “bit”
for “vitriolic” try “nasty”
As for the sentence, it’s hard to tell what the exact meaning is, that’s the whole problem!
maybe: “complex series of jumbled thoughts that form an opaque story”
or even better: “a load of horseshit”
11
jake
// Feb 5, 2009 at 10:27 am
You got it the meaning right. See, it’s not so hard! Though your first translation is lacking a “gradually” between “that” and “form”, as the story is clearer near the beginning than the end.
You’re second translation is the best, though. Actually, that could have been my whole review.
I use a thesaurus pretty much whenever I write, and I’m not ashamed to say it. Is there something wrong about that? I really only use it when I’m trying to avoid repeating the same word, or when it helps me achieve alliteration or something. For the record, I didn’t use the thesaurus for the two words given as examples.
But thank you for the constructive criticism.
12
jake
// Feb 5, 2009 at 11:01 am
Perhaps I reacted to too defensively.
I don’t mean to discourage anyone from expressing problems they may have with my writing. In fact, I prefer that they do so. That’s Step One in improving it. I hereby encourage everyone to criticize my writing; just don’t think I’m not going to turn it into a dialogue, which happens to be Step Two.
I just don’t want Stefan or Phil to think they’re better than me.
13
phil
// Feb 9, 2009 at 10:50 pm
It’s much too late for that, Jake.
14
Joe
// Feb 10, 2009 at 12:04 am
Jake,
Speaking as your friend who has enjoyed your writing in the past and who has read all of your xmen fanfics I would like to say the following:
I can’t read what you have been writing lately. Those pulls from Stefan could have been any of like 10 sentences in there. For example:
“It’s blurriness is transparent and it’s banality is exceptional.”
or
“A chorus later, the source of your fear reveals itself as Lisa ‘Left Eye’ Lopes’ obligatory drivelous rap part, full of appeals to God and nonsensical platitudes such as ‘Dreams are hopeless aspirations in hopes of coming true.’”
You could maybe get away with one or two of those but you have gone over the edge into indecipherable oblivion.
It is just so packed with awkward sentences that are basically containers for book and hyphenated words (i counted 24 hyphens in 29 sentences(!)) that it is rendered unreadable. Literally. As in I can’t read it. And I can read some shit. Some shit!
15
jake
// Feb 10, 2009 at 7:55 am
Yeah, I’ve come to realize that I’ve been writing these reviews like film theory papers rather than reviews.
16
???
// Aug 16, 2009 at 6:28 pm
EPIC FAIL. as in; tried to criticize something that is widely recognized as great but got criticized HARDER and made to realize that he is nothing compared to the subject he approached . Tried to look a bit smarter with impractical words, and was told by the readers that they won’t buy that kind of fucking shits. telling something is bullcrap, with lots of bullshits is not really criticizing. It’s a fucking wrong move, man.
17
Stace
// Aug 17, 2009 at 6:43 am
I really disliked this song.
I really want to know what chasing waterfalls means. And seriously, if you’re going to be a PSA for something at least do it better.
I really liked the review though.
18
jason
// Aug 17, 2009 at 12:14 pm
i love this song and hate myself for it. so i guess i agree with everyone.
19
Sarah
// Nov 3, 2009 at 10:30 am
FUCK YA’LL, this song is the shit. You’re just jealous that you didn’t write it. I hope you all fall down a waterfall.
20
Jake
// Nov 3, 2009 at 10:32 am
You know Sarah, I think you are the only individual on this website who makes any sense. TLC was one of the most influential bands, ever, and ‘Waterfalls’ is the deepest song ever written. These loser’s have no idea what they’re talking about.
21
phil
// Nov 3, 2009 at 11:04 am
‘Jake’ I erased your comment from before where you were talking bad about me cause I didn’t realize it was written by a human being and thought it was a spam robot or a Russian. My mistake. I’ll fight you if you want though.
22
jake
// Nov 3, 2009 at 11:16 am
Yeah, this doppelgänger is a dipshit.
23
phil
// Nov 3, 2009 at 11:43 am
When you let people leave comments with fake email addresses you end up with mostly illiterate kids. Good job making the umlaut by the way.
24
Joe
// Jan 2, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Fuck, I want to read “Jake’s” deleted comment so hard.
For the record, I like Waterfalls because I am a racist and I think it is important to keep “certain people” from trying to overcome the overarching hegemony, or whatever. I mean whats next? A black president? If that ever happens I am moving to Germany immediately.
PS I miss you Phil and Jake, but not “Jake.” (No offense “Jake”, but I don’t know you and can only judge you from the quality of your one not-deleted comment. From that comment, I can only offer the advice that saying “individual” instead of “person” is a little awkward and you may have one or two extra apostrophes scattered throughout your post. I am sure you are a fine American though and a good son to your parents.)
25
rlcampbell
// Dec 17, 2011 at 10:58 pm
I’ve come to realise throughout reading your review that you clearly would never appreciate rnb irrespective of who the artist is so i think you should do yourself a favour and not berate a group that you will inherently dislike whatever they produce, or in this case produced. I am the first to admit that their delivery in this song; lyrics and video alike, but granted for opposing reasons, can come across as somewhat obtuse, yet if you consider their motives is that not the point. Is the song not meant to be sending out these two messages in the most blatant way it can yet ensure the song is heard by as many, and by that I mean as many, youthful, listeners as it can. In short, is the audio not meant to be obscure an the video clear. Surely, at least such a cold hearted person as yourself can see that these women were simply trying, in the only way they could, utilisation of their exposure as singers, to save as many adolescents as they could from a mindless early grave. This song was released when I was around 10 and it made me ask questions at that age. It is not trying to be an intellectual piece of work. It is message driven and simply understands how best to ensure absorption, amongst children!
And all this nonsense about chasing waterfalls! what are you on about, i mean really! why oh why do you have to be so blinkin literal! All they’re tryin to say is that a waterfall is obviously a ‘special’ thing/place/fruit of nature. Why else are the largest ones up there within the world’s wonders. Chasing waterfalls can easily be read as chasing things that are almost unattainable – aesthetically gratifying yet are not in some way a part of real life, dangerous even. There is absolutely no need to focus on the fact that they are static, after all, can you not also be in search of something that does not move? Moreover, waterfalls by definition are dichotomous; their name simultaneously describes an event and physical structure enjoyed in tandem and only in one place, yet. they are also formed by some of the fastest flowing natural waters in the world. The can arguably epitomise movement and wonder and freedom and danger and….
I felt I needed to write this because I have had enough of people like you spouting off their opinions as though their are fact sealed by some fact godlike figure in wax. At least have the courtesy to mitigate your long winded moan with an understanding of the fact that our word is only yours and not gospel.
You get the picture, grow up.
You must log in to comment. I tried it the other way and had to erase 1,000 ads for viagra and mortgages one by one. Register here, it takes less than ten seconds.