Very interesting post. I hope you get some thoughtful responses.

1. The evidence I believe is pretty clear from Augustine that (a) the psalm is equal in importance to the other readings, and (b) the congregation sings a response to the psalm. I do not have quotes available at the moment. But since his use of the word "respond" by Augustine refers to the congregation singing and not to the whole psalm itself being a response, the interpretation by MJO etc seems correct. If memory serves me correctly from my studies, this is the universal scholarly opinion as well. I never even heard of the other view until it was mentioned on this forum. Bugnini was not among the scholars we read regarding the early history of the liturgy (I do not mean to insinuate anything by that; just explaining my unfamiliarity with the theory).

2. I have not read it so I cannot comment.

3. I have a single professional singer who cantors all Masses and is a section leader in the choir. If she's not there I would just lead it a cappella by myself (easy enough to do with the Chabanel psalms).

I don't know if this fits your questions, exactly, because it is just an opinion...

I think a [Resp.] Psalm (most of a Psalm text, sung in a way that highlights the text) is a more sensible form than a Gradual (a tiny bit of a Psalm text, sung in a way that highlights the singer and the melody), especially in the context of the Novus Ordo Mass in the Vernacular.

(Whether "sensible" is quality to be sought in liturgy is a whole other issue.)

As to what form the inter-lesson Psalm/Catnicle ought to take (Refrain-Verse-R-V-R, Antiphon-Verses-Antiphon, Straight-through, etc....): I increasingly lean toward a straight-through chanting (Anglican style) by either the whole congregation or the choir (acting as representatives of the congregation).

Refrain-style encourages a lot of badness. Even at its best, it breaks up the PSalm in a weird way, and encourages the congregation to wait around for it part to sing. We can't participate in the whole thing, but neither can we relax and let the text/music affect us.

The imprudence of this was a fairly recent realization for me at the time, but in the years since that experience it has seemed to me that a ritual moment that requires a trained, prepared solo singer (not necessarily paid, but certainly above-average!) is an awkward, even impractical “requirement” for the post-V2 Mass.

As opposed to what, singing the Gradual from the GR? Yeah, any volunteer singer could get up there and do that a lot easier than an Alstott Psalm from the R&A.

Are you thinking Metrical hymnody?

Interesting.

I will say though - I have a couple amateur cantors, and they can handle Guimont and Gelineau Psalmody reasonably well; they aren't more likely to have trouble with the Psalm than any other thing (Psalms at Communion, etc.)

I guess I feel that in general, with some exceptions, amateur cantors are not preferable.

Felipe:

Yes... very aware of who Bugnini is. The innovator of the new rite.

Is there a difference between the way that antiphonal Propers are structured and Responsorial psalmody?

Also, how does one add psalm verses to the Graduale? Does one need the Liber Usualis and a psalter/Bible?

Speaking of form, we now have four litanies in the Mass: the Kyrie, the RP, the Prayer of the Faithful, and the Agnus Dei. The RP is the one that stands out because its response and any musical setting of it change not just from season to season, but from day to day.

It’s like a liturgical karma chamelion.

Fixed. Improved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmcA9LIIXWw

From a logistical standpoint:

If you have a choir, then the Responsorial Psalm doesn't require a cantor. The choir can intone the antiphon (women or men alone, or altogether), repeat it (tutti) with congregation, and then sing the verses and antiphons which follow. At my parish, we use the Parish Book of Psalms (accompanied, sung in unison) with the volunteer choir and somewhat more challenging SATB choral settings with the professional choir (verses a cappella, antiphons accompanied).

You will find that the antiphons for most responsorial psalms are in fact the text of the prescribed gradual.

I would love for that to be true.

Re: Difference between antiphonal and responsorial psalmody. See (besides McKinnon) Beyond East and West: Essays in Liturgical Understanding, by Robert Taft, S.J.

In antiphonal psalmody, as originally conceived, the ANTIPHON is what was sung antiphonally. The verses were sung by a soloist: Verse (cantor), Antiphon (first choir or other group), Verse (cantor), Antiphon (second choir), etc. What is commonly called antiphonal psalmody, in which the verses are sung alternatim by two choirs and the antiphon sung by all at the end (and sometimes at the beginning) was a later development that some have chosen to call "alternate psalmody" to distinguish it from true antiphonal psalmody.

Christ Garton Zavesky wrote: "A Responsorial psalm represents the entry into the Mass of a liturgical form which properly belongs elsewhere."

The Roman Mass has always included both antiphonal and responsorial psalmody, even if at some periods it took an attenuated form.

If you look in your Graduale, you will see that in the Responsorial and Direct forms the psalm verses are marked "V." whereas in the antiphonal forms (chiefly the introits), they are marked "Ps."

Bruce,

Please: I don't deserve the promotion!

As to the substance of your comment, essential to the modern RP is a back-and-forth, "call and response" (as one organ technician called it recently), which is, in its nature different from the Gradual or Tract. Precentors intone, and the choir joins. The "this is what it sounds like, so sing it back to me; my turn; sing it back to me everyone" approach which seems necessarily part of the modern RP is not the same.

Apostolic Constitution "Graduale Romanum": Even though the text of the Roman Gradual, at least that which concerns the singing, has not been changed, still, for a better understanding, the responsorial psalm, which St. Augustine and St. Leo the Great often mention, has been restored, and the Introit and Communion antiphons have been adapted for read Masses.

James McKinnon "The Fourth-Century Origin of the Gradual" (Early Music History, Vol. 7 (1987), pp. 91-106): Thus what is implied in the existence of liturgical homilies based upon psalm texts is made explicit in these passages. At the very moment in history when we finally have undeniable references to the gradual psalm - the later fourth century - contemporaries speak of it not as something subordinate to the readings but as a reading itself. p. 102

The second point is a more subtle one: it involves a certain ambiguity of language in these early references to the gradual psalm. Many passages speak of the gradual psalm's being read while others say that it was sung. There are passages that assign its performance to a lector and others to a singer. It was emphasised above that the psalm was generally referred to as a reading, but there are a few passages from the period that clearly distinguish between psalmody and mere scriptural reading. Perhaps this ambiguity can best be attributed to a time of transition, when the obsolete conception of psalm as reading was giving way to the new reality of psalm as musical event. p. 104


I would also be interested in hearing what anyone knowledgeable has to say about why the format of the responsorial psalm in the lectionary differs from that in the Graduale Simplex. This bears on Felipe's question in his third comment about the historical accuracy of "resurrecting" the old psalm.

I personally don't have a beef with the insertion of a responsorial psalm. It achieved two directives of Sac. Conc., one being that the treasures of scriptures be opened up more lavishly, the second being that participation should be encouraged through the congregation's taking part in antiphons, responses, etc. Restoring the congregation's role in what originally was a responsorial psalm still seems like a good call to me.

The question about choosing a psalm the corresponds to the first reading is more problematic, not only because it leads one away from viewing the text of the psalm as a reading of its own and precludes the historical choice of responsorial psalm from reflecting graduals securely assigned to certain Sundays and feasts in the earliest Roman-rite graduals, but because the selection of the first reading was sought to correspond to the Gospel readings according to nearly unfettered rationalism. Thus, while there is a first reading-responsorial psalm-Gospel nexus, the poor second reading is orphaned. I don't really see a fix for the responsorial psalm unless the first reading is jettisoned (how many in the congregation really know the immediate context of Hebrew Bible readings anyway?) and the responsorial psalm has a more consistent relationship to the historical graduals. At least, why can't the historical gradual selections always be sources for the seasonal/common responsorial psalm choices?

About the psalm verses having a more elaborate melos: for this recently past Solemnity of Christ the King I asked Fr Columba to write propers for us and specified that the cantor's verses of the responsorial psalm and the alleluya be in a somewhat developed and more elaborate melos; and no two verses being the same - each verse having its own melos. He gave us beautiful melodies for these, not as elaborate as in the old gradual responsories, but certainly more than a mere psalm tone. My purpose in requesting this was precisely to recapture the substance and spirit of the historic gradual responsory and the alleluya verses. The result was very pleasing. I commend this to others. It is high time that we begin to cultivate and train real cantors, masters of the art of chanting holy scripture, rather than amateur singers who can do well to get through the sort of drivel that is sung in most of our churches.

Felipe,

The examples you cite successfully discredit my sweeping statement: "Even though the compilers of the new lectionary may have tried to select psalms that were suitable responses to the lessons that preceded them, they did not succeed, and I doubt that anyone could have."

I believe, however, that if I were to look through the lectionary, I could find many examples in which the relationship between the psalm and the preceding lesson is hard to discern.

Charles -
You need to do a little preening and get your feathers back in order.
It is obvious that I couldn't possibly have had your cantors nor their ilk in mind.
Nor was my language half so severe as your caricature of it.
I'll stand by the tenor of my words, however.
Most cantors do very well to sing half decently the insultingly simple things they are given to sing from missalettes, Respond and Acclaim and their ilk. A cantor of historic times would have been incredulous that these people are called cantors.
We need to have cantorial training in our schools, universities, and sacred music departments that teaches the real art of chanting holy scripture as their long-gone predecessors did.

To my mind, the intended restoration of the ancient gradual responsory was one of the glories of Vatican II liturgical reform. As with many other aspects of the same, the putting of it into practice has left much, very much, to be desired. Those who, often with good reason, don't like the responsorial psalm should look to a more apt rendering of it, rather than injudiciously casting the fault upon the form itself.

I'm going to try to scan the propers that Fr Columba wrote for us and put them up here. They represent what the responsorial psalm should be like, as well as representing a complete set of propers, i.e., Intr, RespPs, Alleluya, Offert, Comm, should look like for English liturgy every Sunday and solemnity.Too, I specified to Fr that the texts should be English versions of those of the GR, excepting the RespPs. One will notice that each v. of the RespPs has its own distinctive melos. In this way the form and spirit of the historic gradual responsory is preserved. Also, note the relatively elaborate Alleluya verse and the use of one of the simpler Gregorian Alleluyas.

"cantors are lazy" is pretty harsh, unless it means "we are all lazy, worms that we are".

Well, one in particular was. But I wrote that, went off to work, and discovered that the cantor (uh, that would be me) was lazier than he should have been. Pride goeth before a fall, and all that.

Are cantors in general lazy? Well, if they were allowed to select their own psalm settings, to what extent would ease-of-use weigh into the decision?

MACW -
A just comparison and a just conclusion when comparing the historic graduals with the typical renderings of the RespPs that hold sway in most of our churches. However, this is really unfair. Unfair because you are comparing highly inspired and crafted liturgical musical poetry with drivel. Singing the responsorial psalm in English to modern chant does not have to be the drivel that we hear. No one has yet given us truly poetic musical settings of the psalm. A good effort in that direction is Fr Columba's example, which I have attached above. This is a start towards what should raise the responsorial psalm to the inspired level of the historic gradual responsory, of which it is the direct heir as concerns the NO, particularly in English.

Also, it is fortuitous that you mention the contemplative element. A characteristic of responsorial psalmody, as contrasted with antiphonal and in directum psalmody is precisely in that it is a vehicle for and fosters contemplation. It is this aspect that sets 'the psalm' and the Alleluya verse apart from the other, antiphonal psalmody (Intr., Offert., & Comm.) of the mass propers.

The RespPs, like the NO itself, has gotten far more bad press than it deserves because, not of its inherent nature, but of the manner in which it has been degraded by common, liturgically illiterate usage.

MaryAnn: RPs and graduals are apple/orange comparison. Graduals are meditations on a short snippet of text, whereas RPs are longer texts that communicate more “direct” thoughts. The latter is usually intended to be understood easily, whereas there is less need/intent of “direct” cognition for graduals. And, as mentioned earlier, graduals are (more or less) thematically “free-standing”, whereas the RPs, in their modern form anyhow, usually “answer” another reading, by design.

College buildings I have seen that were built around the time that the OF was being put together show a callous disregard for beauty. Beige walls, “functionalism”, etc. I wonder how much of that mindset informed what we now have as the preference for RPs over graduals and the OF in general.

MJO, The musical forms are very different, of course. Consider the question from a score analysis point of view. The Graduals are more through composed, or ABA if you like, and Responsorial psalms are more strophic, often relying on utilitarian psalm tones or approximations of them. The Graduals are able to contain far more melodic interest and decoration. The smaller, "snippet" of text is gloriously set free, and the listener has time to absorb the prayer.

I'm not sure where you are going with the English vs Latin ideas. I'm only referring to musical form and its limits.

You didn't answer my question, and I'm still wondering if you are able to sing and pray the Gregorian Graduals on a regular basis. My guess is no.

Basically, it sounds like we ought to compose graduals to the English text. Of course, doing so without taking quite as much time to unfold the whole text.

We can't stop worrying about the Gradual / Tract / Alleluia... They are still with us, both in the EF and NO. They are also Universal, I can hear the music from the Graduale Romanum 1962 sung across the globe! We also have polyphonic settings of these texts still being sung.

I only have the misfortune of hearing the R.P. when collecting music from the gallery, and well it is awful...
This idea of a Reform of the Reform, has quite a few problems.
1. Has the R.P. been a success? in the average parish? what is the view of the average pew sitter? or even Bishop?
2. The AVERAGE N.O. parish has no idea of the Solemn Sung Mass.
3. A vocal minority in many parishes does not want a Solemn Sung Mass
4. Many of the people involved in the choir of the average parish lack the skills in singing better quality music.
5. The R.P. are not universal, there are multiple translations, and multiple settings.
6. Every parish seems to have it's own way of doing things.

So we ignore the problems and go away and write better settings, but who will use them?
Will each parish in search of better music choose a different setting?
What happens when the campaign for new translations gets its new translation?
So we focus on settings in English, can we sing them in all English speaking countries?
If we are honest how many parishes will use them in the short / medium / long term.

Now we have the supportive Parish Priest, we have a willing and able director of music, we start with using a better setting, but then we keep upgrading... we swap from English to Latin... until we reach the GR / polyphonic settings! I have seen this happen twice now in England, and I see signs of another 3 parishes well on the same way.