I deliberately withheld my own views just to see what transpired, but much of what's been said echoes my feelings.

I do, both consciously and accidentally, alter the words of a song when I find they don't fit the rhythm, or if I think I can make it rhyme when it doesn't, or if what's written down is just unsingable in some other way. I try to stick to the tune as I've learned it, although there may be variants, in which case I'll choose the one I prefer. If possible, I seek out variants of the words too, and may fuse several of these into one version that I like, rather than making my own changes to the first version that I find.

But you have a point, Jim, about changing too much; if we change everything to modern, idiomatic, everyday language, we risk losing some of the precious and fragile qualities of the old songs. Sometimes the quirkiness and mystery of archaic language are the main reason for a song's appeal; on the other hand, a singer may feel uncomfortable singing words that don't feel natural and may even be incomprehensible. It's always a tricky balance to get right. But I have a feeling our forebears in the days before mass literacy were not so scrupulous, and may have changed or re-invented a lot as they went along.

I wouldn't suggest for a moment that we give up writing things down and rely on memory entirely. Never having the opportunity to see or store written lyrics would reduce some people's repertoires to little more than Happy Birthday and God Save the Queen (and maybe the Wild Rover and half of Last Thing on my Mind..). It's just interesting to speculate on the effect that the printed word - and now electronic information-sharing - have had on our songs and our readiness to alter them.

Marje