Maybe I've spent too much time with Protestants, but I thought at least in that context, the article was saying something true (if not particularly useful).

From a Catholic perspective this could be at least mildly heartening in that a gradual return to traditionalism in Protestantism might help with a gradual return to traditionalism in Catholic worship.

On the other hand, the more likely case is that the gradual return to traditionalism in Catholicism is part of the larger cultural phenomenon that is driving the same in Protestant worship, and that (to the extent that the two strains are impacting each other) it is the Catholic dog wagging the Protestant tail, not the other way 'round (which, in itself, is a welcome change from 20th century "ecumenism").

But it's easy to write these cute little blog posts about how things are changing, or how they need to change, or what not. What compels me to throw my lot in with CMAA and Friends is that this is a network of people who are trying to do something about it, not just talk about it.

I don't know, I am a people over a certain age and I never liked that stuff. The noisy get the attention, while the majority of us either keep quiet or leave.

Yeah, I was afraid it wasn't going to be clear: I wasn't stating that ALL people over a certain age complain about/request contemporary music, just that the complaints and requests that I get regarding the use of "contemporary music" almost always come from people over a certain age. I've just noticed that in my dealings with people. I've had a grand total of probably six in the last year or so (considerably small percentage considering the average age of the parishioners in my church), but it's always been someone over a certain age making the request. Also, in my situation (YMMV), it's usually women over a certain age making the request or lodging the complaint.

Contemporary music is just that! It's temporary. It's what most people listen to and think is 'modern'. It isn't. When, if ever, they hear music that is actually modern most of them like it far less than even Beethoven or Bach. Con-temporary = 'with the times' = here (hear?) today and gone tomorrow... unless its admirers grow old and then think of it as traditional, which it isn't. Like truly modern music, if they heard truly traditional music they would likely not like it. What irony! We are the most powerful and wealthy nation in history with some of the world's finest educational and cultural institutions and 90% of our population are cultural illiterates.

I've seen it all over the place. The new young generation of Catholics love the more traditional aspects of Catholicism. I've successfully trained complete newbies to sing Gregorian Chant, with the support of simple organ accompaniment. It may be a long time before we go with completely unaccompanied Gregorian Chant, but it is making a revival.

I've also noticed the trend away from the "contemporary" songs. Partly because fashions change so quickly these days, much of this stuff is now considered "unfashionable" and people would rather stick with "golden oldies" because they never go out of fashion.

Quite a few young Catholics also love the fact that they can sing the same songs with their grandparents and their parents. Young Catholics are very family-focussed these days and using older music acts as a sort of inter-generational bonding.

That's not to say that there isn't a place for newer music, which builds on tradition. Quite a few very popular hymns amongst the generations date only from the mid-20th century such as "Help of Christians, Guard This Land" - a staple Marian hymn for the Catholic Church in Australia (I'm surprised that the rest of the English-speaking world doesn't also sing it.) And "Christ Be Our Light" published in 1993. Quite a few other hymns have become quite popular because they are sung to old hymn tunes such as "Christ Be Beside Me" to Bunessan, and to the same tune "Baptised in Water, Sealed in the Spirit."

"Traditional is the new trendy."

Opinion is the issue. We care too much about what people think. The Church has stated in her documents what she wants us to do. The problem is when we ask ourselves, "what will people think of that?" or "will they like that?" or if we say to ourselves, "they won't like that," or "they won't understand it," or "I'll get complaints." Remember, Jesus got complaints: a lot of them.

Yes, Charles, exactly, although I wasn't totally clear on what I meant, sorry about that. What I meant by "we care about what people think too much" is just the general idea that people's opinions are more important to the decision-making process than they should be sometimes. There are many times when the opinions of the PIPs and others can be helpful in making a decision (whomever is making it, be it priest, bishop, Pope, etc.), and also times when opinions of others should not matter in making a decision. The frustration here is that it seems that there is no difference sometimes, and that opinions are always considered as important to the process. I understand that it makes people feel like they have a say and are giving their input (and can be a good administrative move, because then you can say you've consulted outside authorities, or polled the population, or just generally "considered the options"), especially because there are people for whom it is important that they give their input (we've all known people like that in our lives), but the reality of it is that sometimes, this input is not always necessary, valuable, nor appropriate: one does not always get a say.