I have a copy right here in front of me, and the difference from the traditional Latin Mass is night and day. It entirely incorporates the spirit of Vatican II and the New Mass.
The 1964 Missal is universally acknowledged to be the same as the 1570 Missal, the only difference being the allowing of the vernacular.
Your stance of being a traditionalist at heart but just loyal to Rome is betrayed when you make statements like this. Rather than being "universally acknowledged to be the same as the 1570 missal," the reality is that not a single traditionalist on the face of the Earth is using the 1964 version of the Mass. Nor would they. It is universally execrated, by traditionalists as a betrayal of the traditional Latin Mass, and by liturgical revolutionaries as not revolutionary enough.
And that was the Missal used in the first Clown Masses.
Thank you for admitting that it was never the traditional Latin Mass that ever allowed even "the first Clown Mass," but rather the post-Vatican II 1964 Missal which first allowed sacrilege and heterodoxy to replace the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
The 1964 Missal is the same as the 1962 Missal, except that the vernacular is allowed (not required or imposed, but allowed). No prayers were changed or excised until later. Same ordinary, same proper. No different really in principal than going to Dalmatia and hearing the Roman Mass in Glagolitic Slavonic.
Of course, if we want to play games about what is the "real" Tridentine Missal, I'll maintain that the last "real" version of it is that of 1910/1925, prior to the first changes of Bugnini and Antonelli under Pius XII. Of course, the SSPX does not use that Missal.