Interesting question. I am definitely of two minds about this. Part of me loves a change that makes a song closer to speaking my mind; and part of me deplores the loss of the history and the loss of the original speaker's voice.

For example, "I'm Going To the West" had the gender changed, apparently by Peggy Seeger. It takes it from a man's song, leaving his more traditional wife, into a woman's song, leaving to go West on her own.

Does it matter if the song's author is known and alive? What if that person approved the change? A friend of mine rewrote Richard Thompson's "We'll Sing Hallelujah" so that the verses are upbeat and match the chorus. He has Richard Thompson's permission, but it still sets some of our friends off when he sings it.

And I have another friend who rewrote Sydney Carter's "Silver in the Stubble". He disliked all the verses about lusting after ladies and attempting to be good by going to church, so he changed it into a song that praises his lady while lamenting the loss of their youth.

The "Silver in the Stubble" change bothers me much more than the "Hallelujah", and I can't exactly tell you why, unless it's because the first way I hear a song is the way I become imprinted on it. I like both of the songs in their original versions, so it's not that.

I think, as a rule, it's silly to change gender in story songs; ballads. I sometimes like it when it's done in a love song, or one told in second person or first person.

Some dialect songs I change; some I just don't sing. Look at the discussion of "Master of the Sheepfold". How many of us would sing it in its original pseudo-darkie dialect? I love the sentiment of it: the Master is at pains to make sure we are ALL gathered in, not just the good ones; but to sing it in black dialect seems to me to make it mawkish and patronizing.

In all cases, though, I like to see the original preseved. Maybe it's a case of what's more powerful will survive.

Blessings,
Barbara