I'm the outlier, sorry, let me explain.
I prefer the traditional liturgy and would attend it and not the contemporary liturgy, all other things being equal.
However, the former is at 8:30, the latter is at 10:30--did you get my drift?
Furthermore, my wife would never attend at 8:30, even were I to do so. She is even more the late sleeper (week-ends that is, she still works business hours) than I am.
The 8:30 service is--literally--dying. Yes, some people under 70 attend. Not many. The numbers of over-70's can increase as time goes by as 60-somethings become 70-somethings, but as for the current over-70-s and over-80's.... do you get the picture without being too specific?
Agreed, none of the 10:30 music is hard-rock inspired, but it is more light-hearted and fun to sing than the traditional hymns.
If even I, an over-70, get more pleasure out of singing contemporary liturgical hymns of charismatic or even evangelical origin, how much more so the under-70's who never attended "traditional" worship to start with?
We have Communion every week, and is it a profanation of Lutheranism? I don't know, maybe so. The same would apply to ALL the Roman Catholic masses (except the exceedingly few Latin?) as well, no? Most Anglican as well? Does that leave anything besides ethnic-origin masses? (Hard to find--I would attend Missouri Synod masses if I could find one where German is still spoken.)
That said, I really do object to SO LITTLE of the actual words of INSTITUTION being said at mass. And BASICALLY THAT ALONE is why I still come down PREFERRING the traditional mass, even though I never attend it except when I sing with the choir (alternate Sundays in "season" that is, and we sing both services on Palm Sunday and Easter).
In any case I would be quite the hypocrite to vote with the rest of you, not to at least PERMIT others to do what I MYSELF do.