When a song created in one language is sung in another, its text will be either a translation, an adaptation or a ‘replacement text’. This article attempts to distinguish between a song-translation and a song-adaptation, in terms of the latter’s unforced deviations from the meaning of the source text. It also discusses the option of devising a new set of words which fit the tune but have no reference to source-text meaning. Translating, it is argued, is the wrong word for this activity, and so the resulting lyrics, neither translations nor adaptations, are termed ‘replacement texts’. To illustrate these categories, the article examines the 1968 show Jacques Brel is Alive and Well and Living in Paris, which treated Brel’s French songs in three different ways. Though singable translations may stray from strict semantic fidelity, the paper argues that freer renderings (those with significant deviations from the source-text meaning) are best not termed translations at all, but adaptations. Although adaptations or replacement texts are not condemned, the article addresses ethical questions about the extent to which these practices err by infringing the rights of the original song writers and by misleading their audiences.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 51 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.