What would be gained or lost between these?
    The times they are a-changin'
    The times they are changin'
Is the a there just so the verse sounds better, and nothing else?
Whatever it is, would it be the same about be-loved and loved ?
To me. it seems to be just a matter of rhythm(as you said), but it(=a-changin') may be more 'literary'.( Here I can't have an opinion right now).
Adding 'a-' before some verbs seems to be older English. Â I'm tempted to say it's just used in song (as Rafee said, to fix up the metre), but I'm not at all sure; it only happens before verbs, after all, and it may be just a few selected verbs, so maybe something else is happening. Â Is it some old adverbial marker, maybe, as with "away" and "awry" and maybe "against"? Â Anyone know?
If it is just an artificial "patch" for the metre of songs, it's kind of like adding '-o' to the end of some lines in the old songs:
There was man he had a dog and Bingo was his name-o....
Green grow the rashes-o
I don't think the same thing is going on with 'be-' before verbs, though. Â When you put "be-" in front of a noun, it makes a verb out of it. Â To befriend a man is to make him your friend; to belie a statement is to make it a lie; to belove someone is to make her your love. Â You can see more of the same with "benight", "believe", "bereave" and others. Â It happens that we don't use "belove" any more; the only form left is the adjective made from the past participle, so it looks like it means the same as "loved".
I just looked up a few of those words. Â Putting 'be-' in front of nouns goes back hundreds of years; "befriend", for example, goes back to 1550. Â But it says here that according to the OED, 'be-' did not originally attach to verbs but was a verb intensifier; apparently they took to putting it on nouns later (but still long ago).