I wish they would have put more emphasis on chanting the actual Propers of the Mass, whether in English or in Latin.

So much of this document, at least in the musical parts of it, are just quotes from previous documents of Vatican II or papal pronouncements.

I see that they are allowing "percussive instruments" to be used at Mass if they are "suitable, or can be made suitable..." What? Does that mean that pianos (percussive because hammers hit strings) are now allowed in Portland parishes officially, or does this just refer to drums? (And btw, how can drums ever be made "suitable" for Mass?) This document certainly contradicts tra le sollecitudini.

Also, this document would have been a perfect opportunity to emphasize the importance of option 1 from the General Instructions to the Roman Missal for at least the Entrance and Holy Communion Propers. Alas, this opportunity was missed. It looks like OCP will still be peddling their "chants" to the parishes, and the parishes will still be singing substitutions for the real (minor) Propers of the Mass, and the priests will go on thinking that these substitutions are just fine.

Lord, who can save us from this? We are being deprived of actual parts of the Mass each Sunday!

Something to muse on:
In the Maronite rite (I don't know about the other 21 Eastern rites in union with Rome) the Order of Cantor is one of the minor Orders, and the Cantor chants the (minor) Propers during Mass. In the Roman rite, the Cantor has never been a part of minor Orders, now called "ministries", which in and of itself gives the clear and distinct impression that the Readings given by the Lector (an official ministry in the Church) are of much more importance that the (minor) Propers. Perhaps if the Office of Cantor came into the Roman West, the (minor) Propers might be more valued.

Apropos of Melo's comment, it may also be noted that, in the previous decade, the USCCB engaged in a finesse to deputize conference-level approval issues to the ordinary having jurisdiction over the domicile of a publisher. Thus, the ordinaries of Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon, the Archdiocese of of Chicago and the Diocese of Saint Cloud, are at least notionally in a position to attempt something more than their confreres. (Of course, if they attempt something, the conference might well reconsider the deputation.)

Not particularly. It's not like his late immediate predecessor took any initiative in this regard either before his illness took center stage in the last two years of his episcopate.

the USCCB engaged in a finesse to deputize conference-level approval issues to the ordinary having jurisdiction over the domicile of a publisher.

Does a Conference even have such authority?

The Milwaukee Symphony's tymp-set was always 4--except during Britten's War Requiem.

So ... tympani are in and pianos are out? ... yet both occur in the symphonic repertoire, which some seem to set as the basis for including such instruments for liturgical use? I rather think that tympani or piano alone or in a small ensemble is not something desirable for accompanying liturgical choral music. But, lest you forget or do not know, Stravinsky's remarkable Symphony of Psalms, has, not one, but two pianos in the orchestra. And several of Shostakovitch's symphonies employ the piano. Maybe it's a Slavic or eastern thing ... but then, the eastern churches (Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholic) seem to stick to a cappella singing.

Mind you, it's not like it's the only liturgical directive to be virtually dead letter on promulgation - something that predates Vatican II, mind you.

IIRC, Basile's Fifth Avenue Famous has some passages on the very spotty reception of Tra le sollecitudine in US parishes.