I just posted a comment on the new Church Music Association of America forum, but I didn't want to get too long-winded over there so I thought I'd sum up some thoughts I had on the USCCB document "Sing to the Lord" here and then put it away.

Here's what I posted in the forum:

My impressions - first, the big stinker that kept resurfacing was a reference to "multicultural pluralism" and "pastoral sensitivity."  Statements like, # 30:

"The choir may draw on the treasury of sacred music, singing compositions by composers of various periods and in various musical styles, as well as music that expresses the faith of the various cultures that enrich the Church."

That seems like opening the door to mariachi and polka Masses... while not excluding Palestrina of course. In general, the primacy of being "pastoral" makes all music choices subjective to the individual situation.

Another thing that jumped out at me was the insistance of the primacy of congregational singing.  Even while the document carefully states the "internal" sense of full, active and conscious participation, out the other side of its mouth it says,

"So that the holy people may sing with one voice, the music must be within its
members’ capability. Some congregations are able to learn more quickly and will desire more
variety. Others will be more comfortable with a stable number of songs so that they can be at
ease when they sing. Familiarity with a stable repertoire of liturgical songs rich in theological
content can deepen the faith of the community through repetition and memorization." (no. 27)

This implies that sacred music should be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator of congregational singing.  It becomes clear that the choir should sing a bare minimum of the liturgical music, leaving that job to the congregation:

"The choir must not minimize the musical participation of the faithful. The congregation commonly sings unison melodies, which are more suitable for generally unrehearsed community singing. This is the primary song of the Liturgy... [the choir may] enrich the celebration by adding musical elements beyond the capabilities of the congregation alone." (No. 28) 

After all the good information I've absorbed from the CMAA since joining (getting close to a year ago), by comparison "Sing to the Lord" is a self-contradicting and apparently politically negotiated document that claims to give guidelines that could be implemented in a parish, and winds up being just a frustrating read.  I did not read the previous bishop's document for comparison, though no doubt it was worse.  They are making some baby steps in the USCCB, but thankfully the grass-roots sacred music movement seems to be Holy Spirit-driven and is making some real progress, judging by the chant workshops and success of the colloquium.  And there continues to be reassurance from the liturgical practices in Rome and statements of Pope Benedict that affirm the authentic Church teaching on sacred music, which is easy to access and understand.  It helps discern the meat from the fluff in a document like this. 

(I should pause now to say that reading this document took me back to my youth ministry days when I had to read bishops' documents for committees I served on.  In truth, this at least quotes more authentic Church teaching, if only in passing as if giving lip service to it.)

So beyond the multiculturalism and pastoral sensitivity, and the down-playing of the role of real musicians/choir/cantor in favor of some "let the people sing" approach to liturgical music, here are some other points that surfaced as I read through the document.

Here is an example of a beautiful piece of Church teaching that is completely contradicted by later statements in the document:

12. Participation in the Sacred Liturgy must be “internal, in the sense that by it the faithful join their mind to what they pronounce or hear, and cooperate with heavenly grace.” Even when listening to the various prayers and readings of the Liturgy or to the singing of the choir, the assembly continues to participate actively as they “unite themselves interiorly to what the ministers or choir sing, so that by listening to them they may raise their minds to God.” “In a culture which neither favors nor fosters meditative quiet, the art of interior listening is learned only with difficulty. Here we see how the liturgy, though it must always be properly inculturated, must also be counter-cultural.”

Then you get a statement like No. 15: "Authentic sacred music supports the Church’s prayer by enriching its elements."  ?? It goes on to describe the "element" as the bishop, priest, deacon, the "gathered liturgical assembly", and finally, "ministers of liturgical music."   Permission is given for the choir "to draw on the treasury of sacred music" (though that is placed on equal footing with choosing multiculturally sensitive choices) (no. 30).  Although the document apparently acknowledges the choir has a particular role (no.31) unless it is singing alone it is only supposed to join in with the congregation while the organ or other instruments lead the singing.  I guess a cappella Masses are frowned upon, eh?  

The document favors the term "pastoral musician" for the person who has a particular role NOT leading the singing at Mass.  The term pastoral is used 30 times within the text of the document.  This is, of course, a buzzword for making exceptions to norms and placing sacred music at the whims of the subjective experience of the congregation... or at least what some liturgist, music director, or pastor perceives as being the majority opinion of the congregation... or worse, what they personally want the experience to be like in their parish.

Some other tidbits:

"When the Agnus Dei is sung repeatedly as a litany, Christological invocations with other texts may be used." (no. 188) Um, since when? I don't believe you'll find that in the Missale Romanum or the GIRM.  Here's what the USCCB says on their website about the bishop's right to change the liturgy:

May the Diocesan Bishop change liturgical laws for his Diocese?
In regard to the celebration of the Eucharist, the Diocesan Bishop is given a particular role in the publication of norms for the regulation of the liturgy in his particular diocese. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal [GIRM] assigns to the Diocesan Bishop the publication of norms on concelebration (GIRM, no. 202), service at the altar (GIRM, no. 107), Holy Communion under both kinds (GIRM, nos. 282-283), the construction and renovation of church Buildings (GIRM, no. 291 and 315), posture [GIRM no. 43.3, liturgical music (GIRM, nos. 48, 87), and the establishment of days of prayer (GIRM, no. 373). (see “The Diocesan Bishop and the Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia, in The BCL Newsletter: July, 2002, page 82. Also available at http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/innews/072002.shtml). Other rights of the Diocesan Bishop to regulate the liturgy are described by documents other than the GIRM, including the regulation of Masses on radio, television and via the internet, and his responsibility to establish a diocesan calendar. With the exception of these and other modifications of the law explicitly assigned to the Diocesan Bishop, no additional changes to liturgical law may be introduced to Diocesan liturgical practice without the specific prior of the Holy See. http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/q&a/rsbishop.shtml

 There is an undertone to this document of paying lip service to Gregorian chant's pride of place among sacred music, but this is pish-poshed by basically indicating to the typical pastor or parish musician who may be reading this, that really Gregorian chant is too difficult for your typical church choir, why even bother?  Here is what I mean:

Choirs with the requisite ability may sing the proper Communion chant from the Graduale Romanum, either in Gregorian chant or in a polyphonic setting, or other suitable choral pieces. (No. 193)

There is also the matter of the responsorial psalm vs. the gradual chant.  Of course, the responsorial psalm has become standard practice in parishes, but it is truly an innovation, far-removed from the gradual which is what the Graduale Romanum would have sung between the first and second readings.  It is probably not meant to be sung as a responsorial at all, being sung by the (gasp) cantor or choir alone, but, according to William Mahrt, is an opportunity for mediation on the scriptures, and preparation to receive the Gospel.  But according to "Sing to the Lord," there is some kind of rule against using the gradual (this is just not true):

The proper or seasonal Responsorial Psalm from the Lectionary for Mass, with the congregation singing the response, is to be preferred to the gradual from the Graduale Romanum. (No. 157)

But such a statement is not surprising given the all-important role given to congregational singing in this document.

Oh, I could go on, but that's enough frustration for one post.  Plenty more expostion of this topic can be found at:

 http://thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com/2007/11/usccb-document-on-liturgical-music.html

 and http://musicasacra.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=26&page=1#Item_0