It is interesting how she asks that we "Let the Spirit lead." By capital letters, I assume this would mean the Holy Spirit. Of course, the Holy Spirit is always at work in the church through the successor to Peter. So, why no mention of something from the Magisterium (Now look: I know this is a small quote, so I'm not totally trying to take everything out of context. But de-supernaturalization and a lack depth seems to be a problem with these sort of aids)? How we treat each other is very important, but ultimately what matters is that we are getting to heaven, and that our music is helping people get there, right? There is a lack of Hope in many of these writings, in a theological sense, which is replaced by a sort of false optimism about the present situation and a general laissez-faire.

I do suggest that we retract the "conservative" and "liberal" labels: they are misleading. After all, it is a sort of musical-liturgical mediocrity that often rules the day, so in fact that group (if it may be called such) really should be labeled "conservative" in our current situation. Perhaps we can use "orthodox" and "progressive" as more accurate terms.

I too have met Elaine and have talked to her at length.

She is quite obviously "left-leaning" in several regards. She might even admit as much if you asked her. What I give her credit for, though, is that she advocates sticking to and playing by the rules. I attended a liturgy institute in which she taught not long after the revised GIRM came around. In discussing the new rules of no accompanimental music underneath the priest's prayers of the mass, she rolled her eyes and expressed obvious displeasure. She said "All I can say is that this too shall pass. Until then, follow the directive."

I give her some credit for saying "follow the directive" and advocating obedience even when she clearly does not agree with it.

"the new rules of no accompanimental music underneath the priest's prayers of the mass"

?

A little bit of knowledge can be dangerous. What troubles me is that music directors read Today's Liturgy and think that they are making informed decisions. Is replacing the Offertory with a song suggestion from Today's Liturgy an informed decision, when you don't know where to find the Offertory and wouldn't know how to read it if you did? And how many well-meaning parish "liturgists" will think "If ERM can make suggestions for innovations, why can't I?" etc. Further, I for one bemoan the Church's lack of a real effort to implement the directives of Vatican II. But this doesn't seem to be what she's getting at here, or it's vague at best.

Under the Eucharistic Prayer, that is. I don't think it's really a new rule.

Yes, that was my point.
The OLD (1975?) GIRM:

12. The nature of the presidential prayers demands that they be spoken in a loud and clear voice and that everyone present listen with attention.[21] While the priest is reciting them there should be no other prayer and the organ or other instruments should not be played.

So I don't know that anyone deserves "credit" for being a by-the-rules kinda guy, who ignores, (or remains ignorant of) a rule until a louder, more publicized iteration of the rule, and then is snide about the the "new" rule.

What I give her credit for, though, is that she advocates sticking to and playing by the rules. I attended a liturgy institute in which she taught not long after the revised GIRM came around. In discussing the new rules of no accompanimental music underneath the priest's prayers of the mass, she rolled her eyes and expressed obvious displeasure. She said "All I can say is that this too shall pass. Until then, follow the directive."

It reminds me of how much some in the Lifeteen program made of their "obedience" to some rubric in the new GIRM that, surprise surprise, was no change from the old GIRM.
What had changed was a new bishop who insisted the owners of Lifeteen get with the program.

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

Yeesh, Jeffrey....
First some sort of Seinfeldian "atheist" connotation; and now "Gnostic tempatation?" Whazzup wid dat?
Let's just think about it (Today's Liturgy) at some sort of primal level- it is just a support system that shills for its company's product line. The quasi-intellectual articles, IMO, are akin to those articles and interviews of yore in "Playboy." You know, "Uh, yeah, I read that article by that guy that, uh, said the TLM was some sort of golden calf...Oh good, I can do "Parable" again this Sunday!" (The real centerfolds are those weekly bailout suggestions.)
I actually think GIA's counterpoint is more blatantly and patently commercially oriented. And spare me Dr. Moleck, someone please.
Sorry, a bit catty. My bad.

"And Charles is right."
Dearest MaryJane, I just showed that to my wife! She said, "That's nice, dear." Then she walked away.

I've wondered, tho', if a celebrant is capable of singing the sacramentary EP after the preface accurately and in G dorian, what would be "bad (not ILLICIT, we already know that)" with an accompaniment that harmonically embeds the chant in a (roughly) Gm- F- Dm -C canon, which would presumably be followed by a Sanctus tonally centered in F major or G Minor?

I actually think GIA's counterpoint is more blatantly and patently commercially oriented.

Isn't that the point? GIA seems to say "here are our products, and these are times you might use them in the liturgy." OCP is more covert, and seems to say "here is the liturgy, and these are songs you should choose." That 9 out of 10 times the suggestion is published by OCP (and never, say, from the Graduale Simplex) is bad enough. But this magazine has actually taught generations of parish musicians that there is such a thing as a "Gathering song" (a what?) a "communion meditation" and a closing hymn of sorts (what do they call it? the "sending forth"?) while at the same time removing the Offertory from the Mass propers. I have actually been "corrected" in parish liturgy committees by people who have said "We don't use the term 'offertory' any more. It's called the 'preparation of the gifts.'" I of course then open my post-Vatican II edition of the Gradual and point and say "Then what do you call this?"

Ya know I was thinking Sursum corda, but brain dead and head cold-itis demonically possessed my typing fingers, MJB.
My wallet already looks like George Costanza's....sigh. By the time I could find your quote amongst the wad of cellulose someone will have absconded with my stolen shopping cart full of bags of aluminum cans!
Anyways, what about the underlaying harmonic accompaniment, all things in the PREFACE being poifect?

From GIAmusic.com: "Mass of Light" (included in the Creating God collection)

It took me a minute to parse "Creating God" so that "God" was not the object of the verb "Creating".

I doubt I'm the only one who's curious what Elaine had to say, Jeffrey. (I do understand, though, that it was a private communique.)