This is a fascinating thread with some great links, especially the one to the
electric scotland article.

However, I think the comparisons some posters have made to people not knowing most of the verses of various national anthems, or to the lyrics of traditional unattributed folk songs changing over time, are inappropriate in this case, because Burns is not a simply "known and well respected" (to quote from one of the posts above) - he is generally regarded as being among the ten or so greatest poets of all time, and he is regarded by many as the greatest writer of song lyrics of all time. As such, messing with his lyrics is akin to misquoting Shakespeare.

And in the case of Auld Lang Syne, most of the changes that have been made to his original have completely altered the tone and meaning of the song from that intended by Burns. By singing only the first and last verses (or sometimes, only singing the first verse), and omitting the rest, it makes it appear to be an up-beat, optimistic song - whereas the complete song is very wistful, and should therefore, I think, be sung at a slower tempo than it normally is these days.

And the original line "For auld lang syne, my jo" (meaning "my sweetheart" or literally, "my joy") is much more intimate than "For auld lang syne, my dear" which is usually sung today.

The original is a wistful and nostalgic song in which the poet, meeting up again with his childhood sweetheart, reminisces about how close they once were, and reflects a little sadly on how they have ploughed separate, hard and lonely furrows since then. For the sake of their former happy times together, he invites her to share a drink with him and to reminisce.

That is not the tone or meaning that most people would think it had as they listen to the greatly shortened and slightly amended lyrics that are usually sung today, generally sung to an up-tempo, optimistic beat. All the subtlety and wistfulness of the original is lost.