The samples you posted did, IMO, have some surprising rough spots in that regard.

I think they were rough in spots and they engendered more sympathy and understanding on my part for those responsible within the BCC, ACROD and, yes, the OCA, who have struggled over the years with adapting prostopenije to English without losing its 'flavor.'

I will take 'rough' and understandable English any day, however over a dead language - even though I am of a generation where my heart is still moved by the old ways - for a little bit!I am not going out on a limb in assuming that our Slovak 'cousins' probably feel the same way!

it must also be aesthetically pleasing, indeed, poetical, since it is poetic in the original;

My tastes in Orthodox chant are truly catholic. I will listen to, and sing, just about anything--Russian, Halich, Carpatho-Rusyn, Bulgarian, Serbian, Georgian, Greek, Melkite--it's all on my iPod.

None of the current English texts is entirely satisfactory. I tend to judge them by which cause the least pain or offense. Needless to say, the RDL fails as a "translation" of the Ruthenian Recension. My respect for the 1965 English translation, however, has grown considerably over time, in part due to the work we did with John Vernoski in putting together the so-called "study edition" of the Divine Liturgy translated from the Ruthenian recension. With the exception of some omissions, some anachronistic choices (the aversion to the word "orthodox", the use of "Mother of God" in place of Theotokos, and "ever and forever" in place of "ages of ages"), most of the problems could be rectified with a very light application of the blue pencil. For the most part it is accurate, lyrical, and aesthetically pleasing.

As far as the Melkite translation goes, I don't think that much of the new version, and would stick with Raya, who is perfectly serviceable, if you update the rubrics and restore some things that he may have omitted in light of Melkite practice of his day.

Regarding the Psalms, unfortunately, there is still no really good translation of the LXX Psalter, though the Orthodox Study Bible tries. My own personal preference is for the King James Version, still unsurpassed and a treasure of the English language. The translators knew that the Psalms were meant to be heard, not read, and when you read them aloud, there is no problem with comprehension, while the cadences and imagery are simply magnificent. We should hold onto these not only because of their spiritual value, but because they are the common patrimony of all English-speaking people, something that binds us together in a shared culture.

I have little time for the newer translations from the Masoretic, which either go for a didactic literalism that loses both the poetry and the hebraic idioms; or for colloquialism verging on paraphrase. So, I guess, the NAB, Grail, and Grail II are out.