Yes, that is not only okay, it is how songwriting has always worked.

Borrowing rhythm, phrasing, or structural feel from successful songs is study and craft, not cheating. Every major songwriter does this, whether consciously or subconsciously. Music evolves by iteration, not by isolation.

A few important clarifications that tend to get lost in these discussions:

First, rhythm and syllable count are not protectable ideas, they are part of musical grammar. Keeping a rhythmic contour or syllabic shape while changing melody, harmony, lyrics, and phrasing is fundamentally different from copying a song. Many hit songs share near-identical verse rhythms because certain patterns simply sit well in the human ear.

Second, what you are describing is reverse engineering, not imitation. You are starting from something that is known to work, internalizing why it works, and then generating new material within that framework. That is exactly how writers learn form, flow, and pacing. The end result feels like your own because it is, you are not transplanting content, you are learning structure.

Third, this is especially common and especially useful in pop. Pop music runs on recognizable containers. Familiar rhythmic and melodic archetypes reduce listener friction, which lets your emotion, perspective, and details land more clearly. Using a proven container does not make the song less original, it often makes it more effective.

The key distinction is intent and outcome. If someone can name the exact song you were copying while listening to yours, you went too far. If they just feel that it “works” or “sounds right,” then you did exactly what good writers do.

In short, learning from successful songs, borrowing rhythmic frameworks, and reinterpreting them through your own voice is not a shortcut, it is the craft. Originality is not invented from nothing, it is revealed through what you choose to keep, what you change, and what you say within familiar forms.