Altering lyrics? Do you do it?

Nobody owns individual words, but the combination of words that make up the lyrics to a song are owned by the composer. That's the whole basis for copyright laws.

I don't believe you'd get in trouble for changing a few words, but they are the property of the composer.

I often wonder about the work of Homer & Jethro or Weird Al. Do they get permission from the composer?

I know the owners of the rights to Oscar Brown Jr's Snake have asked Donald Trump to stop using their father's lyrics. Good Luck with that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPKg4_uq2Eo
I don't know about the legality of it either, but like you said in a previous post Jim, the whole perspective to the song House of the Rising Sun was changed at some point. And you mentioned Dave Van Ronk, his Hesitation Blues is like that. It isn't anything like Willie Nelson's Hesitation Blues, or anyone else's before him for that matter. A few common phrases, but the whole perspective of the song is different. Willie is gong down to the lake, Dave is standing on a corner. But lots of songs are like that. But back to the legality, I mean, technically you aren't supposed to perform them if you are not licensed. So you go to play an open mic at your local coffee shop and they have a license to cover the premises, are you legally bound to perform your covers exactly as they were originally written, copyrighted, and performed? Are you allowed creative leeway? I don't know. I can promise that I am not doing songs exactly as they were written, even when I'm trying to do some of them exactly like they were written. It certainly is an interesting topic and I wonder how many people are trying to conform to the letter of the law, whatever it is.
 
Last edited:
I don't know about the legality of it either, but like you said in a previous post Jim, the whole perspective to the song House of the Rising Sun was changed at some point. way? I don't know.

A lot of popular songs started out as folk songs and don't have a traceable author, so they're not copyrighted (although subsequent arrangements may be). House of the Rising Sun is a case in point.

From Wiki:

"Like many classic folk ballads, "The House of the Rising Sun" is of uncertain authorship. Musicologists say that it is based on the tradition of broadside ballads, and thematically it has some resemblance to the 16th-century ballad The Unfortunate Rake.[4] According to Alan Lomax, "Rising Sun" was used as the name of a bawdy house in two traditional English songs, and it was also a name for English pubs.[5] He further suggested that the melody might be related to a 17th-century folk song, "Lord Barnard and Little Musgrave", also known as "Matty Groves",[6][7] but a survey by Bertrand Bronson showed no clear relationship between the two songs.[8] Lomax proposed that the location of the house was then relocated from England to New Orleans by white southern performers.[5] However, Vance Randolph proposed an alternative French origin, the "rising sun" referring to the decorative use of the sunburst insignia dating to the time of Louis XIV, which was brought to North America by French immigrants.[8]"
 
Last edited:
Some rights holders are more strict than others when it comes to interpretations.

My father was once given the task to translate a John Lennon song to danish, for someone else to sing.
The estate had to approve the translation before they were allowed to publish the record.
So apparently you cant always just pay for rights and change lyrics as you please.

But nobody is going to police campfire renditions of songs.
 
I suppose, that's what it all comes down to: As soon as you're making money with a changed song or changed lyrics, you'll need the permission of the copy right holder to change anything. As long as you're singing a changed song version at a campfire for friends or an OpenMic-Night, I don't think anyone will care.

Although I suspect that OpenMic Nights - depending on the place and scale - may already be in the grey area regarding the legal aspect. For someone MAY be making money, even if not with your specific performance but with the whole event. I suppose in the end it will come down to the old German saying of "Wo kein Kläger, da kein Richter" - "As long as nobody complains (or sues you), you won't be judged by anyone" (well, more or less...).
 
Sometimes folk songs are changed to suit the context. The song Down In The Valley To Pray was changed, for the movie Oh Brother, to Down In The River To Pray.

I know that minor changes are made both purposely and by accident when songs are performed and if I can't recall a line, I'll often just make something up that fits, sometimes better than others.
 
Another great example is Iz's "Over The Rainbow/Wonderful World"; His version contains many of the words in the original songs, but not all of them, not in the same order, and nothing like the original tempos.

So what?

He was just jammin' in the studio, the engineer hit the record button, and history was made.

Some folks I know have never even heard the Judy Garland recording of "Over The Rainbow" - which, incidentally, left out the introduction.

So you want to play a song with changes to some words? Go For it! There is a thing called Fair Use.

You want to publish or record a song that you changed lyrics for, and it isn't in the public domain? Get an agent/lawyer, and get permission.

-Kurt​
 
While I do love Iz's version of Over The Rainbow/Wonderful World, I do wish he'd taken a bit more care with the lyrics. Musically, it sounds wonderful, but his version of the lyrics make absolutely no sense - and now there are ukulele players all over the world singing his mangled version of the lyrics.
 
Last edited:
While I do love Iz's version of Over The Rainbow/Wonderful World, I do wish he'd taken a bit more care with the lyrics. Musically, it sounds wonderful, but his version of the lyrics make absolutely no sense - and now there are ukulele players all over the world singing his mangled version of the lyrics.
Sometimes I've heard the lyrics wrong or what I wanted to hear. Louis Armstrong version of Wonderful World is "dark sacred night" I heard "dogs bark at night" and some just like the dark.
 
We have changed the odd word to make a song gender specific;
for instance when we were (briefly) an all male group,we changed
'I love him' sort of lyrics to 'I love her',thats about all!
 
personally, I was a bit put off by "I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die" from
Folsom Prison Blues, so we modified it to "I pinched a man in Reno just to watch him
cry" :)

of course, that begs the question, "Where did you pinch him?"






in Reno, of course :)

keep uke'in',
 
personally, I was a bit put off by "I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die" from
Folsom Prison Blues, so we modified it to "I pinched a man in Reno just to watch him
cry" :)

of course, that begs the question, "Where did you pinch him?"






in Reno, of course :)

keep uke'in',

Thing is, pinching probably wouldn't land anyone in Folsom Prison, so that they could be blue and sing the song. I don't know how many people have heard Jockey Full of Bourbon, but I changed the heck out of that one last night.
 
A small change to be sure, but I always disliked the cold & impersonal reference to a child as an IT, as did Tom apparently.

I'm fine with someone changing lyrics, but a guy who is friendly with the Devil, has two wives, and a kid he disputes having in the first place would probably feel pretty cold and impersonal toward said kiddo. Maybe he didn't even care to look close enough to know the gender.

Just sayin'.

Robert Hunter was often against explaining "the meaning" of his songs as he thought the listener should form their own opinion about what's going on. I think using vague words (it vs she) helps keep the door open for that.
 
Johnny Cash did it with the song "Hurt" by Nine Inch Nails:

Johnny Cash
============
I wear this crown of thorns
Upon my liars chair
Full of broken thoughts
I cannot repair

Trent Reznor
============
I wear this crown of s**
Upon my liars chair
Full of broken thoughts
I cannot repair

Petey
 
I have no qualms about changing the lyrics if I find them offensive to me, or if I feel that by me doing the song as written in front of other people is going to get a negative reaction.

In the end, the potential for negativity towards me for performing the song is more important to me than if someone is upset because I changed a word or two.

Most people around me when I play are not listening closely enough to the lyrics to actually care if a few words are changed.

I pay more attention to the melody and interesting chord progressions of the music I am playing, and to me, the words are actually kind of a bother, and one reason why I've been on a study of learning to play more chord-melody style, and as a result vocals being redundant and unnecessary.

I'm not a great singer, likely never will be, and I do not care to be, but I can become a much better ukulele player, and that is what makes me happy with the ukulele.:)
 
It interests me that once in a while someone will say so and so played that song wrong, and it is usually because they changed some words or play it at a different tempo, or anything that deviates from the rendition that it was done by someone else who recorded it that they emulate. I never hear that from an audience member. It always comes from some musician who is a purist and prides themselves in their skill at replicating said rendition of the song. But I don't care how good you play or sing, you cannot replicate the soul that Iz put into that song. It isn't The words that makes that song what it is, it is heart and soul. You have to find your own soul when you do a do a song.
 
Last edited:
I change lyrics sometimes. I might change the gender point of view. I might change a line if I think I have a better one. I like to do "Peaceful Easy Feeling." I changed "I found out a long time ago what a PERSON can do to your soul," (instead of "woman").

I'm reworking Don't Fence Me In to be a song about outer space and gravity instead of the open range. It's such a fun song, but in a modern world where cowboys are few, space is just more fun. Hopefully Cole Porter isn't rolling in his grave.

I'm more concerned about the songwriter than the audience. Not vis a vis legal issues but just out of respect for their work, their creation. Local audiences are pretty cool and if the occasional person is a purist, I just smile and change the subject.
 
I'm more concerned about the songwriter than the audience. Not vis a vis legal issues but just out of respect for their work, their creation. Local audiences are pretty cool and if the occasional person is a purist, I just smile and change the subject.
I can't remember getting push back on anything particular that I've done, but I do get a lot of unsolicited advise on all sorts of things. Sometimes I ask for a demonstration, and that usually ends the conversation. A lot of people seem to be able to tell me what I should be doing, few can show me what they think I should be doing.
 
I often wonder about the work of Homer & Jethro or Weird Al. Do they get permission from the composer?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPKg4_uq2Eo

From my understanding, Weird Al seeks out the original artist before doing a parody to get an OK. I think only a couple have said no. I remember when he did "Smells Like Nirvana," Kurt Cobain was thrilled. It was a sign the band had really made it!
 
Top Bottom