Chris, I'm afraid I don't quite understand where you are going with the La Marseillaise example.

By adapting the piece I meant playing only a few measures for the introduction instead of the whole refrain or only singing it one time through with the whole choir instead of the cantor singing and the the choir repeating it. But you are right that in the style of these antiphons that can only be done to a certain extent and will vary depending on the individual antiphon.

For many parishes there was little change because that's mostly what they were doing anyway. One may discern that much of those rules affects only those who are trying to do more traditional things, and they are in a minority.

We had been singing the Communion Antiphon from the choir, before starting the Communion hymn: this stopped, and those who hadn't liked it were gratified. We had in another place been chanting the Entrance Antiphon (from Weber) on either side of the Entrance Hymn: this stopped along with the rest of use of Weber's chants, and those who hadn't liked them were pleased. All the Deacons I know complied, but I've no idea how readily. Some servers I know withdrew from altar service, but m sure they were replaced.

On the whole, though, I think there was never anything in the way of major changes.

What a bunch of micro-managing ... forbidding people to genuflect before receiving communion? Seems that some bishops have too little real work to do...

There's not much to say about the situation in that Diocese other than it's been spearheaded by the same polemical individuals that have presided over incompetence and liturgical ignorance, led a mistaken (to be charitable) campaign against liturgical practices they don't like, and whose reach goes further than the Diocese's borders in many cases. I don't believe Bishop Crosby is directly at fault.

These are the same clowns who told me it "wouldn't be a good idea" to use the Gradual Psalm in Latin at an OF Mass after admitting it was licit, with no real justification given.

Bishops' 'authority' and priests' 'authority' have been referenced several times in this thread. In the cases in which it has been mentioned that authority itself is questionable. We need to make a clear distinction between 'authority' and 'power'. They are not the same. 'Authority' issues from and conforms to Church teachings, Church documents, Councils, and Papal teaching. What is done that does not conform to the express wishes and commands of these is done, imposed, by sheer power which presumes to go beyond its authority. Just above here the forbidding of kneeling is mentioned. There is no authority for this - only the imposition of the likes and dislikes of one who has power, but who is acting beyond his authority. We are all quite aware of similar uses of power in the service of that for which there is no authority - such as the forbidding of Latin, chant, organs, our musical heritage, and on and on, for the doing of which there is not a shred of authority, in fact it is directly contrary to authority. Authority has been given for the fostering and preservation of these things - not for suppressing them. Every thing that bishops and priests do is not necessarily 'authoritative', 'authentic'. There isn't much we can do about it - except to tell them so. And, if all of us stood up and told them so it might made a difference.

Just listened to one of the samples... All I can say is I doubt this would sway a single soul into appreciating chant in any way (as was suggested earlier in this thread). That theory seems so far-fetched as to deserve laughter. This sounds like classic emotional prot dribble that just happens to have a liturgical text dragged—flogged, bleeding, and naked—behind a horse as it runs around the town square.

Nothing about these settings will instill any sense of sacred.

Nothing about these settings will encourage you to consider chant in any way. (Those interested in the texts will have already made the discovery of true chant anyway.)

Nothing about these settings feels "Catholic" in any way (apart from the lamentable fact that they resemble the dribble that is all-too-frequently pandered around the US).

Nothing about these settings has even basic recourse to traditional church music, be it chant, polyphony, hymns, or otherwise.

To me these settings are akin to bad liturgical architecture. You can call a brick box a "church" but it no more resembles a beautiful Bavarian baroque masterpiece than my dirty sneakers. These may have liturgical texts, but they no more resemble proper liturgical music (of any of umpteen varieties) than the power ballads I hear on the radio.

I promise I don't mean to be cruel, but I really fail to see how this is an improvement in even a slight way. It's a bit like making a vow with your fingers twisted behind your back. "Well, I said the words at our wedding!" [But did you mean it?]

Nathan,

The Marseillaise (as you're aware) is the hymn of the revolution (although it didn't start out that way), and is played solemnly for state occasions and the winning of Olympic medals.

Kazoos and saxophones aren't frequently thought of as solemn-music instruments.

Could kazoos and saxophones play the piece? Probably. Would it resemble itself? Maybe. Would this be a good thing? No.

The chant antiphons' texts are (originally) beautiful. The manner in which they are set is... arguably.... something other than beautiful, and not usually considered suitable for transcendent work.

Chris, I actually wasn't that familiar with The Marseillaise. I figured you were going in the direction of instrumentation making the music sound wrong, but I wasn't sure.

Those contemporary antiphons are... well. They want the atmosphere of a non-denominational church without the baggage or theology.