I use it for my own private recitation/singing. Honestly, while I see value in the simple tones, they are a little too "simplex" and don't vary from day to day. On the whole though, I think its a good way to start a LOTH renewal.

Love it.
Beautiful concept, beautifully executed, "user friendly,".... I am very grateful to Frs Weber, Martis, et al.
I use it only privately, there would be no place for it in my parish, alas.
Although I have used it at funerals, sung psalms from it for which the congregation had no trouble at all picking up their response.

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

Skitalets, you said it. The Hours are a far far better option than the lay-led communion service. Someone please make this argument systematically and send it to me for Sacred Music.

We use it at least four times a week, I have been through the all the cycles a number of times. Generally, I think it is unbeatable for a way for a community to sing the offices together. I think it is orientated towards community rather than personal use. The psalms are well-thought out as far as how they are pointed to the tones. The tones are very singable. I don't know if it is still available, but there is an organ accompaniment book to the psalm tones and Greg. antiphons. (I would be happy to send you a version) I like the psalm tones in general, though they can get a little monotonous over time and are simpler than the Meinrad tones. It is a great help to have a book, a whole breviary that is you can just pick up and use. The hymns are really well translated, I think, and very easily singable by a great variety of hymn tunes.
Of course, you can substitute any other settings or polyphony etc. The book is nicely printed. After awhile, the two gospel canticles become memorized by everyone and they don't need to look at the book.
Oh, one strange think, which I've never figured out (maybe someone can explain this) is the the Invitatory psalm with antiphons in not in the book! I don't understand the reasoning for this.
So, we end up using the breviary for the invit. psalm and antiphon, and then the Mudelein, for the rest, rather a pain.

I think the book is highly commendable. Everything about it, from layout, hymnody and all is almost flawless. I do agree, though, with several others above as to the limited selection of psalm tones. The same ones are used over to rather tiring effect; and there is not even one in all the eight modes. Too, these modern psalm tones are good to have in the repertory and are beautiful, but tiring after a while as a no-other-choice option. It is too bad that Catholics seem to have given up on the Gregorian psalm tones in English. With a rhythmic translation (and this is a must) I can vouch from much Anglican experience that English psalmody to the Gregorian tones can be immensely satisfying. This seems to me just another example of the unhelpful if-it's-Gregorian-it-has-to-be-Latin (or, the if-it's-English-it-can't-be-Gregorian) school of thought.

The book is really well made, and the idea behind it is really fantastic, but the antiquarian attitude towards copyright makes the whole project a dead end.

I love it. Some might find it overly simple, but for an average parish "come to evening prayer," it's just perfect. The hymns are exquisite.

That's how I read the instruction, but what makes it confusing is that in the context of the propers it keeps directing to the commons whuch in turn directs back to Sunday week one for the psalms, which never made much sense. Sometimes I have read the antiphons from the commons but kept the psalm of the day, but it sounds like the psalm AND the antiphons are taken from the commons ONLY when the memorial is elevated to a feast.

That's how I read the instruction, but what makes it confusing is that in the context of the propers it keeps directing to the commons whuch in turn directs back to Sunday week one for the psalms, which never made much sense. Sometimes I have read the antiphons from the commons but kept the psalm of the day, but it sounds like the psalm AND the antiphons are taken from the commons ONLY when the memorial is elevated to a feast.

If you're referring to the general rubric for entries in the Proper of Saints that says: "From the common of x or y, pp," this doesn't mean that those commons are required for all missing elements in a memorial's proper, only which commons to draw more material from if you were elevating the memorial. For example, the patron of your parish would be celebrated as a solemnity, even if it is only a memorial in the General Calendar, etc.

Looks like Palatino to me.

WhatTheFont!? reports that is (in fact) Adobe Caslon Pro.


I converted the title page to an image (attached for reference) and uploaded there.