as a certified 'folk facist', *grin*, I find I am not nearly so reactionary as I thought I was....I like 'folk/trad' music precisely BECAUSE of certain styles, tunes, concepts, language, stories, etc...so, for me gratuitous change defeats the purpose. Yet, even I will change a word here & there when it just seems to make more sense..(sometimes, it doesn't make sense because MY source had messed it up...and I find I am unconciously heading BACK toward the way it was written!)......I believe firmly that, much as Kathy Westra said above, one should strive to KNOW as much as possible about how a song 'was'...even if you feel a need to 'make it your own' or simply make it easier to sing. On the other hand, I have little tolerance for those who feel a personal 'need' to 'mess' with every song they sing, so as to 'stamp' it with their arrangement. This seems to be a particular problem with some who make records-they feel that they MUST have an identifiable version of a song...be it new or 'trad'...and this is one of the major sources of SERIOUS lyric and tune creep...if a reasonably famous artist records a song, there will be those who have NO clue how it used to be, no matter whether it is better or really screwed up...and forever after you get...("well, gosh,..that ain't the way I heard Joan Baez do it"). Bluegrass is especailly bad about this...they would double-time "Lorena"...with banjo breaks!...I know, I know...there ain't no law agin' it...still.....

all that being said, yes..even I do 'touch up' a song a bit...that IS the folk process...what I dislike is when the 'folk processor' is set on 'puree'....