When I used to sing in a schola for a novus ordo Latin Mass, we did repeat the first part. I can't recall it being done in the TLM. My sense is there's a general preference for not prolonging this part of the Mass, as all other action stops for these chants (Gradual/Alleluia/Tract). Hence, one reason for the existence of something like Chants Abreges--although there's also the question of the difficulty of the chants and the skill of the singers.

For the 1962 Missal, let me recommend Andrew Mills's very useful little book, Psallite Sapienter. About the Gradual, he says: "The Gradual consists of two sections, the Respond and the Verse. The cantor(s) intone the Respond to the asterisk, where the full choir join and sing as far as the double bar. The verse is then sung by the cantor(s) as far as the asterisk, and the full choir conclude the chant. [It is permitted for the cantor(s) to sing the entire verse, after which the full choir repeat the entire Respond, without its being intoned. This is the ancient form of the chant, and is to be preferred whenever possible.]"

I notice that Mills calls the first part the Respond, and the second the Verse, whereas the Liber calls the first part the Versicle. This is a little confusing. Apel calls the parts respond and verse, like Mills, and says "with the respond repeated, always in full, after the verse." Hiley also calls them respond and verse, and describes briefly a centuries-long shift in practice from the full repeat to what is commonly done today.

Graduals are responsorial chants and I'm pretty sure that current practice is an abridgment of medieval practice. One cannot think of the respond as an antiphon, since it does not share the musical characteristics of antiphons. Like the responsories of the Office, the gradual is melismatic.

i've never seen this in the EF

...that being said, when EF has a grad, then alleluia, then sequence, it could be argued that a reading would be appropriate in between all those songs....granted, it doesn't happen but five times in the entire lit. year....

There is one gradual, for the feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, in which the respond must be repeated after the verse, because the verse does not end on the final of the mode.

There is, however, evidence in the melodies of some graduals that suggests that the end of the verse makes for a complete form: the melisma which concludes the verse is the same as the melisma that concludes the respond.

The construction of Notre Dame organum is evidence that by the end of the twelfth century, the entire respond was not being repeated: The polyphony sets the parts assigned to the cantors, leaving the parts assigned to the choir to be sung in chant. The polyphony never includes the last word of the verse, requiring the choir to sing the final melisma of the verse, being the abbreviated form of just respond followed by verse without repeat of the respond.

There is one gradual, for the feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, in which the respond must be repeated after the verse, because the verse does not end on the final of the mode.

Similarly, I believe this verse does not end on the final of the mode:

The Notre Dame manuscripts, have a new polyphonic setting of the repeat of the intonation of alleluia after the verse. That this does not occur for graduals suggests that they did not make that repeat. It only suggests, but there is no contrary evidence. That its name respond suggests such a repeat has to do with its history; it once was repeated. Liturgical words very often keep their meaning long after the practice which the word escribes has disappeared, witness "antiphonal" as applied to the introit.

My sense is there's a general preference for not prolonging this part of the Mass, as all other action stops for these chants (Gradual/Alleluia/Tract). Hence, one reason for the existence of something like Chants Abreges--although there's also the question of the difficulty of the chants and the skill of the singers.

My understanding is that using the Chants Abreges (or other abbreviated versions) to shorten the time required for this part of the Mass violates at least the spirit of the rubrics. In the Chants Abreges book it's written:

"Ces chants abrégés sont destinés exclusivement aux églises où il n'est pas possible d'exécuter de façon convenable toutes les mélodies du Graduel Romain, et pour lesquelles on tolère la simple psalmodie des textes sacrés (S. C. R. n° 3697). Partout où il existe des choeurs suffisamment exercés on doit s’en tenir an chant officiel du Graduel."

The cited Decree of the Sacred Congregation of rites, number 3697, reads in the relevant part:

Dubium V. Utrum tolerari posit usus Missam cantandi modo quasi psalmodico, seu semi-tonato?
Resp. ad V. “Retineri posse”. Die 7 Decembris 1888.

It's true that, when our liturgical sensibilities have been formed by the Missa Cantata, often with psalm tone graduals (as mine initially were), or by the low Mass, the time for the Gradual and Tract or Alleluia can seem uncomfortably long. But that's really a false impression, since the normative practice has to come from the official chants. I think this also helps balance the peaks and valleys of the Mass more appropriately. The Gradual and Alleluia rely on their music to show their true importance. When the music is abbreviated, some of this is lost. One consideration for rebalancing, if only slightly, might be that if simpler settings of the Graudal and Alleluia are used, simpler tones (those permitted ad libitum) might be used for the Epistle and Gospel.

Lest I be perceived as one living in a glass house and throwing stones, I certainly see the need for something like the Chants Abreges or the Rossini propers in many places. Our singers in various permutations are now averaging about four and a half Sung or Solemn Masses and one Vespers service a week (and many also sing or serve at other parishes as well). There are competing goods in having lots of sung liturgy versus having sung liturgy sung at the highest level each time out. Even when singers have the skill level to execute a particular chant, they may not have the skill level to execute that particular chant in the amount of rehearsal time available.

Part of the problem is with the 1960 reforms. The pre-reading of the Gospel by the celebrant takes a while and the gradual music covers this. When the 1960 reform eliminated this pre-reading (which elimination isn't universally accepted), the sacred ministers sit for a longer period of time.

Practically, the authorization to repeat the first part of the gradual is an especially useful idea when using Chants Abreges or, a fortiori, psalm tone propers and you want the gradual to last longer!

I have a question concerning the appropriateness of singing the Full Gradual and then the Chant Abreges Tract. Some of the full Tracts can be pretty long like the First Sunday in Lent. The time is just not there for rehearsal. Father does want the Gradual and I think we have time to manage but not if we always include the Full Tract or Alleluia.

Ruth, that seems reasonable to me too. We've sometimes done the psalm-tone gradual but sung the Gregorian alleluia.

David,

We used to sing the tract for Palm Sunday, the first verse in the tract melody, then the next verses in a psalm tone, then the final verse in the tract melody, on the grounds that the singing of the Passion made the service long enough.

I thought, though, that length of the Passion needed at least a little bit more tract than we were doing. So we sang the first three verses in the tract melody, then psalm tones until the last verse. This seemed unsymmetrical, so the next year we also ended with the last three verses in the tract melody. The next year, we began with five verses, and so on, until we then sang the whole tract in its proper Gregorian melodies, which we continue to do. The long tract is a suitable preparation for the long Passion. Members of the congregation have commented on how they meditate on the verses of the tract as we sing them. I have never heard a complaint about the this from the congregation, though one year the pastor said on the First Sunday of Lent, "The tract took thirteen minutes; I am not complaining; I just thought you should know."

Thanks to you all for your responses. David that is an interesting suggestion I will run it by my pastor.