I have not had the entire congregation do this, but for nearly a year now, I have with near complete consistency replaced whichever "open-white-note" setting of the verses accompanied whichever metrical psalm-response I'd chosen with one of the Gregorian psalmtones - whichever mode seemed to fit best. (Using a modal collection like the ones found with Worship makes that easier, but occasionally I draw from other sources, and that can also work, but the compatible modes are usually slimmer pickings.)

The effect of doing this - I believe - has been to get the psalmtones and/or modes in the congregation's ear and mind. Even if a resource like the Parish Book of Psalms might be too daunting for your congregation - I will again take the opportunity to say it strikes me as odd that many of us are perfectly content to be exclusively using newly-composed psalmtones (Guimont, Alstott, etc., but I would also include in this Gelineau, Weber, etc.) before our congregations have even heard the traditional ones - let alone gotten to know them. (Perhaps if we've used the Gregorian ones for years and wanted to introduce some variety, introducing others make sense to me....)

In any event, I think my congregation might be ready to do something like you suggest, but only now that they've heard them so much as to feel that they know them.

"Hence the psalmist, or cantor of the Psalm, sings the Psalm verses at the ambo or another suitable place, while the whole congregation sits and listens, normally taking part by means of the response, except when the Psalm is sung straight through, that is, without a response." - GIRM, different emphasis added.

So, the question is regarding this passage:

except when the Psalm is sung straight through, that is, without a response.

Does that exception refer to the "normally taking part by means of the response" or the "Psalmist, cantor, etc. sings the Psalm while the congregations sits and listens"?

(My guess would be the former.)

Except that, if everyone sings all the verses it is no longer a 'responsorial psalm'. It is The Psalm, sung in directum (which is of course perfectly alright!).

Responsorial psalmody is, by definition psalmody which is sung by a cantor with the people interjecting a 'responsory' at certain intervals. This is what makes it 'responsorial'. The psalm as a whole is not at all a 'response' to a reading or anything else. It has its own integrity and is itself considered a 'reading'. Such singing of psalmody is one of three methods, the other two being 'antiphonal' and in directum. The Alleluya with its verse is also a responsorial form, the responsory being the Alleluya.

The psalm and the Alleluya are the two meditative responsorial propers of the mass (and all should realise that 'the gradual' itself [a responsorial form historically peculiar to the Roman Church] is what is left of a responsorial psalm). The others, Introit, Offertory, and Communion, are antiphonal and accompany action and processions. (Although certain persons are now beginning to treat all five of the propers as if they were responsorial! This is not proper!)

With all due respect, I would have to suggest that Msgr Pope was mistaken. The people's responsory is precisely why the psalm is 'responsorial'. I think that viewing the psalm as a 'response' to a previous reading is something made up after the fact to explain what is not apprehended correctly about psalmody and the literary forms of the propers (of which the psalm is one). The psalm is not a 'response' to the lesson, though it may be related to it thematically (as is the gospel). It is itself a reading from the psalter which happens to be sung responsorially, not antiphonally or in directum. This is about the correct classification of psalm-singing methods, not of imagined liturgical relationships. It does so happen that the psalm will generally amplify the theme of the lesson, just as the gospel will fulfill it. But this is not what makes it 'responsorial', any more than the epistle or the gospel are an imagined 'response'. This is merely a matter of thematic flow.

Yet again, here are the distinctions -

Antiphonal psalmody = (1. Introit, 2. Offertory, 3. Communion)
Groups A & B: Antiphon
Group A: Verse
Group B: Verse
Groups A & B: Antiphon
etc.

Responsorial psalmody = (1. Psalm [Gradual], 2. Gospel Acclamation)
All: Responsory
Cantor: Verse(s)
All: Responsory
etc.

Psalmody in directum = (Tract)
All: All verses sung straight through

(The Tract, incidentally, is the vestige of in directum psalmody - though meant for a skilled cantor. Tractus has roughly the same connotation as in directum. The Tracts are distinguished amongst the propers by being neither antiphonal nor responsorial. They are in a very ancient class by themselves.)

Hm. On further digging, I find that the introduction to the Order of Readings explicitly prefers the responsorial form of the psalm. (§20) Doh.

So, next question in the discussion: to what degree is it preferable that the RP be led from the front? “Built of Living Stones” mentions it as an appositive; while this is not normative as legislation, I’m looking more for what is just “good form”, i.e., what makes logical sense notwithstanding rubrics.

I agree with Ben. Even though the GIRM (does it not?) specifies the ambo. But then - we sometimes have the choir sing the verses rather than the cantor. This also, I think, is compatible with the GIRM... but while the GIRM specifies singing from the ambo, surely it doesn't envisage the choir being elsewhere than in choir or in its space. Too, as many no doubt are aware, there is ancient precedent for two or four or more cantors singing in unison on solemnities and major feasts.

Also, it occured to me as I was reviewing this conversation that we (most laudably) can hardly think of the psalm not being sung, at least at a prinicpal mass with choirs and cantors merely saying it is unthinkable. It should be equally unthinkable to do anything other than sing the OTHER readingS, of which the psalm is only one.

The Respond and Verse of the Psalm need not be so well differentiated by the number of people singing the respective roles (eg. Choir or Congregation for Respond versus Cantor(s) for the Verses), for the very nature of the music itself makes such a differentiation (or it should). Typically the Verse is set to a Psalm Tone, while the Respond is composed differently.

I've recently come to think that the model for the Responsorial Psalm as presented by the Lectionary reformers is not quite what was intended by the musicians who proposed the idea. Just look at what the Graduale Simplex proposes for the Psalmus Responsorialis (or whatever they call it) - much more like the Short Responsories of the Divine Office.

The original question, requiring a fairly direct, simple answer, has now been extenuated in a number of directions. The manner of chanting all the verses between the responses is quite licit and perhaps ideal in specific circumstances.
That said, some of the replies concerning the locale of the Psalmist and the intent of the solo/all "antiphonal" rendition vis a vis conciliar reforms reveal a sort of selective thinking in certain posts. Whether one nuances the realtionship between the first lesson and the psalm as reflective or otherwise, the responsorial psalm in the OF is still a distinct event with a distinct purpose within the Liturgy of the Word.
In that context, the ambo (or at least an epistle side pulpit) is the preferred heirarchical location for the Psalmist. The "another suitable place" is a codicil quite like the fourth option in the processionals. If we assert that those options in the GIRM are in intent heirarchical, to argue otherwise regarding the placement of a solo/soli Psalmist(s) is intellectually inconsistent.
Even at vernacular Masses in the OF at colloquia, the use of the common form of the responsorial psalm has never been utilized in my experiences there, and I believe that colors how we reply to the specifics of the question asked, and its circumstances. We may concur with Prof. Mahrt that the gradual is a fuller expression of the assigned proper psalm, but that shouldn't cross-relate to the practice of the "normative" responsorial psalm. Neither does the competence or lack thereof of the Psalmist mitigate that particular question. If the Psalmist is also the organist wherever the console is, then "another suitable place" is the logical solution, no problem. Lacking that reality, a competent Psalmist should make an effort to cant the verses from the ambo, and let the choir/congregation exercize their role in responding.
If you're blessed with great Psalmists (who don't don horned helmets and breastplates) and a competent choir that can sing the response in SATB without losing the PIPs, everyone should sing their parts quite successfully. That has been my experience for decades.
Noble simplicity, liturgical integrity and artful performance cures a myriad of ills.

Psalms were sung at the LOH of the hours for centuries.

True. And a Responsorial Psalm followed the first reading at Mass as early as around 400 A.D.

Even the introit, offertory and communion were originally sung "responsorially" with the antiphon being sung after every few psalm verses.

Look at the Graduals. They were originally sung as antiphon and psalm verses. Things eventually developed into only one psalm verse, just like the introit and we stopped bothering with the verses for the communio all together.

Prior to 1958, the communion antiphon was sung only at the end of the communion rite, so there was no occasion for singing verses.

Moreover, (if I am informed rightly) in many churches, the communion rite was minimal: Holy Communion was not distributed at some Masses, and in those cases only the priest received the Sacrament during Mass. In some places, It was distributed more often after Mass.

from of old it had been shorn of its verses, as had the Offertory antiphon (which is not to say that we can't restore them!).

Indeed. Exactly.

There is much to commend your observation, Salieri. I don't think, though, that many of us are in favour of patent liturgical antiquariansim. Many liturgical practices of past times would no longer make liturgical sense or be expressive or our faith as revealed in liturgy. Others were omitted in earlier times for such reasons, such as the antiphonal Offertory and Communion psalmody, because they took too much time (sound familiar?) in a rite in which the offertory procession and communion of the faithful had ceased to be features of liturgy. Happily, we have restored the offertory procession and communion of the faithful, and, along with them, should very well restore the psalmody which accompanies them. Too, one might consider that a 'restoration' that might be mere antiquarian oddness in one situation may, with catechesis as to function, meaning, and symbolism, be quite a propos in another. One example: some parishes follow the mediaeval catechetical custom of burying alleluya on Ash Wednesday and resurrecting it on Easter Day. This is very meaningful to children and others, besides being rather a joyous thing. Admittedly, this would not be appreciated everywhere. Clearly, though, we wouldn't want to resurrect practices expressive of 'superstitious connexions'!

What am I to say, Adam? Would you want to?
Or, is your tongue perhaps in your cheek?
There is and has been plenty of superstition in popular piety and outright officially sanctioned belief and practice throughout the Church's history. Borrowings from native religion expressive of actual heresy are rife in South America and Africa, and probably here and there in this country as well. Such borrowings from 'the old religion' (paganism) had a robust presence in historical Europe, and still do in out-of-the-way places there.

I must, though, make an addendum to my comments above to Salieri's salient remarks. There are times and places when and where what some would label antiquarianism is quite en-joying, spiritually beneficial, and profoundly meaningful to quite a few of us who find a certain fulfillment in certain things and practices which a given culture has seen fit to discard. Discovering the meaning, purpose and message in so-called antiquarian liturgical praxis may, in certain company, be not essentially different from reading and being informed by antique spiritual literature. There is no inherent superstition here. Only joy in old treasures.

(Another addendum: I can think, for instance, that passing the 'pax board' would be far more loving and reverent than the way the pax is passed in large numbers of our churches!)

There is and has been plenty of superstition in popular piety and outright officially sanctioned belief and practice throughout the Church's history

Name that tune in two notes: Ash Wednesday.
Looking forward to this evening's EF Low Mass.

Has anyone sung songs through "in directum" in place of the responsorial psalm? and if you do it, what text do you use? just the verses prescribed in the responsorial psalm? or the whole psalm taken from some other source?

I have been entertaining this idea a lot in this COVID time with the lack of singing congregations, and in funerals in general.

We are doing everything straight through: refrain, verse verse verse, refrain. It’s working just fine. We are cantor or choir only, though.

We are doing everything straight through: refrain, verse verse verse, refrain. It’s working just fine. We are cantor or choir only, though.

I've done it several times like this under the present covid-19 restrictions, where 'choir' equals 3 (now 2), no congregational singing allowed.

Probably to be discontinued; I thought it to be a good idea to program the lectionary psalm, when usually we sing a substitute for which there is a choral arrangement in our repertoire (no more than about ten). But now I heard from the parish council that 'people want' (red flag!) something more familiar... there'll be a meeting tomorrow...

The parish council should be asked to reflect on GIRM§61 and what the Church asks us to do, and weigh "foster meditation" against what people are familiar with.

This is kind of what I'll try to mention tomorrow, at least if they are willing to listen to arguments. These folks view themselves as progressives, but they heavily resist any changes to what they 'achieved' in the 80s and 90s.
Especially that it's the parish council that posses the eternal thruths and therefore decides what is good for the people, rather than the pastor or anybody else.

Does anybody use/sing the gradual in the vernacular?

Does anybody use/sing the gradual in the vernacular?

@davido you'd have to get approval from the bishop. It's not licit otherwise.

...gradual in the vernacular?

We do at times in the Ordinariate Use - the P-B versions.

There is, however, an unfortunate 'catch' relative to the OF, which Bruce has pointed out. The option of the gradual from the GR applies to the actual GR chant, not a vernacular adaptation of it. Only approved ritual texts may be used for the ritual portions of the mass, as distinct from musical 'ornaments' such as hymns and anthems. This makes it all the more sad (and irresponsible) that the bishops have not seen fit to provide approved English texts for the propers - evidently because they don't at all care about or want them. I would, however, gladly be proved mistaken in this and would be delighted for someone convincingly and licitly to demolish this reasoning.