10 Songs to Redeem Your Valentine’s Day Playlist

<a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-125623658/stock-photo-audio-cassette-with-magnetic-tape-in-shape-of-heart-on-red-background.html?src=pd-same_artist-125112776-fXHjYjNhj6XCHXU2hNcSNg-2">Ventura</a>/Shutterstock

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Let’s be honest: Valentine’s Day is terrible. But there’s no reason to make the holiday worse by playing those same dreadful songs over and over again. Whether you’re making a mix for that special someone, or holding a party to celebrate having no one, let’s please just agree to quit playing Mumford and Sons and wake up to some of the less discovered love tunes out there. Here are ten ideas to get you started:

The Song: Mumford and Sons’ “I Will Wait.
Why it’s Bad: Come on. You’re not really going to wait.
Potential Substitute: King Charles’ “Love Lust.”
Why it’s Better: A mostly overlooked song, “Love Lust” warps genres at will and has the driving pace that characterizes most of Mumford and Sons’ songs. What it lacks in banjo, it more than makes up for in style.

The Song: The Temper Trap’s “Sweet Disposition.”
Why It’s Bad: Don’t be fooled by the catchy guitar line and soaring vocal delivery. This is a song about desperately convincing someone to sleep with you. Is that really the message you want to be sending?
Potential Substitute: STRFKR’s “Rawnald Gregory Erickson the Second.”
Why It’s Better: If you’re going to try to woo someone, at least make it fun.

The Song: Jason Mraz’s “I’m Yours.”
Why it’s Bad: The syncopated bounce of this song was best left behind in college—when you were trying to impress your friends by playing guitar on the quad.
Potential Substitute: LCD Soundsystem’s “I Can Change.
Why It’s Better: Vowing to change in order to keep the relationship together? That sounds like actual commitment.

The Song: Beyoncé’s “Drunk in Love.”
Why it’s Bad: Don’t get me wrong, her performance at the Grammy Awards was incredible. But given that the song takes a quote from a movie about Ike Turner, maybe it’s best if we keep “Crazy in Love-“era Beyoncé and just leave this one behind.
Potential Substitute: TV On The Radio’s “Will Do.”
Why it’s Better: “Will Do” is a hazy, sultry, and crescendo-driven song about starting a new relationship and all the lust that comes with it. While it’s not quite as intense as Beyoncé, it also doesn’t throw out uncomfortable lines about surfboards or demeaning ones about beating your wife.

The Song: James Blunt “You’re Beautiful.”
Why It’s bad: How often do we have to listen to a dude sing about how beautiful a woman is?
Potential Substitute: Little Dragon’s “Nightlight.”
Why It’s Better: You’ve still got all of the obsession, but less of the boring white guy.

The Song: Maroon 5’s “Love Somebody.”
Why it’s Bad: One part sad, existential longing; two parts echo—in theory, this should work. But somewhere in between Adam Levine’s moaning and my disbelief that he has trouble meeting anyone, I’m lost.
Potential Substitute: The Chromatics’ “Kill for Love.”
Why it’s Better: It maintains the melancholy tone and dance feel, but washes over you in a far less grating way. Some may find it too earnest, too electronic, or too ’80s-influenced (the band was featured on the Drive soundtrack), but it’s certainly way easier to listen to than “Love Somebody.”

The Song: Bruno Mars’ “Just The Way You Are.”
Why it’s Bad: I’m not going to pretend Bruno Mars doesn’t deserve attention. But let’s not kid ourselves: The lyrics are overly saccharine, the music is uninspired, and it’s a completely unreal representation of love. Plus, how many times have you heard that chorus? It stops sounding amazing to call someone amazing after about the fourth time.
Potential Substitute: The Replacements’ “Valentine.”
Why it’s Better: You still get the cheesy fawning, but without the unnecessary polish. There’s a believable grit in those lyrics and yearning in that delivery.

The Song: John Mayer’s “Your Body Is a Wonderland.”
Why it’s Bad: A wonderland? That was the best you could do? I’ve seen you play with Eric Clapton.
Potential Substitute: Jesus and Mary Chain’s “Head On.”
Why it’s Better: What better way to explain attraction than by comparing it to a now famous drug addiction?

The Song: Taylor Swift’s “You Belong with Me.”
Why it’s Bad: Look, I have a huge soft spot for Taylor Swift, but how many times have we heard this song?
Potentital Substitute: Eternal Summers’s “You Kill.”
Why it’s Better: A song about unrequited love should punch you in the gut. This song does just that.

The Song: Anything by Bon Iver.
Why it’s Bad: Yes, he’s folksy and heartbreaking, but let’s stop encouraging him to sing that high. He’s bound to pull a muscle.
Potential Substitute: Mountain Goats’ “No Children.”
Why it’s Better: If you’re going to have sing-a-longs to sad, sappy bastard music this Valentine’s Day, this song’s vengeful poetry will get the job done. Trust me.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate