Whit Hadyn has an interesting essay touching on this topic called "Against Originality In Magic".
He states: "It is essential that those who want to learn magic start by copying or imitating others. There is nothing wrong with this--provided of course, that the effects and routines being copied have been published by the originators. In fact, I don't believe one can learn to be a good magician except by imitation."
He goes on to say that "these (patter, feel for routining, subtleties of misdirection, etc.) are all learned best by the student taking a great routine and learning to do it the way it was created by a competent working performer". (I'm not doing justice to his insightful essay here--I'd encourage you to read the original in his "Chicago Surprise" manuscript.)
Harry Lorayne has expressed a similar thought in his writings: if he has spent literally decades perfecting a routine, why does it make any sense to immediately try to "improve" it without first learning and performing the routine the way he wrote it? Only after having lived with it in front of real people many times should you even begin to consider making changes. (Again, I am doing a poor job of articulating his point--I encourage you to seek out his original thoughts on this which are around in several of his books).
This all makes good sense to me, and this is precisely how I choose to learn a new routine. As I perform the routine over and over for people, I eventually make changes here and there to suit my personality and skill level, which will, in time, make the routine fit me best--sometimes so much so that it becomes much different than the original routine.
Others, of course, are able to change everything to fit them perfectly right out of the box--more power to them, but I think for the average hobbyist, Mr. Baker's well-known aphorism applies.
Just my humble opinion.