i'm of the school of thought which believes a folk song is infinitely mutable, so i freely change words, verses, melodies, even plots to suit my changing mood. i do this capriciously, and without apology. for instance, when i sing "arthur mcbride" i leave out most of the end verses with all the violence, so it comes off as not only anti-military, but anti-violence as well. and i have a chip on my shoulder about compulsive gambling (ex-boyfriend issues... don't get me started!), so when i sing "rovin' gambler", i leave out the verses about "the man i want is a gamblin' man / who wears a golden chain". then i try to make it clear that the hero is giving up the game for love of his lady. i sing the last two verses:

my father was a gamblin' man
he taught me how to play
he showed me how to stand my hand,
to waste my jack and trey

so i gambled up in washington,
i gambled up in maine
and now i'm goin' back to georgia
to gamble my last game

to me, this means he's coming to realize that his gaming isn't getting him anywhere, a throwaway hand, whereas his ladylove is possibly the best thing that ever happened to him. he's gonna ditch the 3-jack spread and concentrate on the possible royal flush. : ) (you can see the ex-boyfriend issues now, can't you?)

this doesn't mean that i always favor "new" versions of songs over the "old"... i'm actually really excited when i find older versions, but mostly because it gives me new ways of viewing the piece, and new ideas for changing it some more!

how about you guys? where does everyone stand on the subject of "authenticity"? i know we all make little changes here and there in the songs in order to make them our own, but what constitutes too much change? and what's a good enough reason to change a song?

emily