Kudos for looking to letting go of Respond & Disdain. I'll not call it a racket, but their psalm profiteering appalls me.

Sometimes we use Gospel Acclamations from Theodore Marier's old hymnal "Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Canticles".

Here are a couple of them:
see numbers 85 and 86

I'll attach one for the coming weeks, with verses as I have set them.

The best options presently available, in my opinion, are the Lumen Christi versions. Most of the Psalm antiphons are by Fr. Columba Kelly and the Alleluias are the threefold ones found in the Graduale Simplex. They're also all free and available at
http://www.illuminarepublications.com - just click on Scores.

For responsorial psalms I have used Arlene's Parish Book of Psalms and Aristotle's Psalms, also some of Fr. Weber's.

For the Alleluia, I use the Mode II melismatic one from Parish Book of Chant, and (this is complicated, let's see if I can say it right:) the final Alleluia, in D Major, from the Easter section of Healey Willan's Introit's and Graduals, I use Mode V for the verse.

The difference is that OCP repackages the same lectionary psalm material, with drastic changes in cover artwork, and sells it every year. All that, even though the text and music have not changed since 1999. OCP also claims that its subscribers should be up to date on the "latest" materials every year, of which Respond & Acclaim has been a staple for decades, even though the material hasn't changed a bit. The only benefit is that it gives the exact date of that year in which the psalm will be used.

The psalm translation has not changed in fifteen years, and a number of the music settings go back much farther, to 1977.

.

I stand by my claim that OCP effectively misleads many well-meaning church volunteers and musicians into buying the same material every year because they're fed the story that they "need" it, and they buy into it. So yes, they are in a sense duped. Otherwise, if legions of said musicians realized they didn't "need" it, the demand would stop, and OCP wouldn't push it relentlessly in their quarterly publications and other advertisements. Having been a user of their products for many years (and not always by choice), I know well of the regular reminders about "Do you have enough copies of Respond & Acclaim for next year?"

It's also shameful the way that OCP wastes untold amounts of paper and ink to reproduce a product that could be bought once, as with GIA and WLP or other publishers, or every few years. The same stands for their annual hymnals, also thrown into the garbage by thousands of parishes after the year is up.

Melo,

I make a habit of not doubting motives, or even exploring them -- in part because its a morass from which there is little productive to be gained. May I, therefore, ask you to explain your defense of OCP -cum- attack on whining in general and one whiner in particular, because I don't understand the source of the distress.

If you would rather address the question in PM, I'm happy not wasting Chonak's time and patience in the back-and-forth which might ensue. Since I don't have to deal with OCP ever again, and am not a fan of any of the big three, I don't have a dog in the show, but I'm interested in why someone attacking OCP has got your dander up to quite such an extent.

Cheers,

Chris

It is not that priests want it, it is that no one has succeeded in working to convince them that a change is necessary. They weigh the complaints that they anticipate from the cantors, choir, guitar group and congregation against the reasons we give them for change, and we fail.

Yes, for parishes that have a subscription for 50+ Breaking Bread hymnals, they get two free copies of R&A and many other free support materials. R&A is only $8.95 a year, which isn't really a money-making scheme. OCP could easily sell it for more.

I can understand the logic behind keeping saving three copies for the three different cycles, but I think the idea is that most music ministers would rather have the current issue so that everyone is on the same page. It's easier to buy new copies each year with the exact dates of the Psalms and Gospel Acclamations. Also, some cycles are different. For example, All Souls falls on a Sunday this year, and the Psalm and GA isn't normally included in R&A unless it falls on a Sunday. Same thing with the Dedication of the Lateran Basilica. So, in theory, one would have to save more than three copies to cover the entire realm of possibilities.

Having dispensed with concerns over another poster's remarks I felt were out of bounds, I would like to point out a few other concerns regarding the subject of resources for "responsorial psalms." As MSF likely has dozens of similar threads, I'll try to be concise.
*An argument for volumes such as R&A is the one most pastors I've known cite for their usage-the obvious placement in their pew missal product. That would be the case whether the supplier is OCP, WLP, St. Augustine, Illuminare, CCW etc.
*An argument against that model will be concerned with merit of settings, typology (cantor v. choral v. congregation), and lack of flexibility and variety that, like it or not, is a serious concern in the standard AmChurch parish. I'll illustrate this later on.
*The argument for using "Psalter" sections in permanent hymnals (as an alternative to the directly above concern) addresses variety and presumably artistry.
*An argument against that is the unfortunate presumption that Guimont, Janco, or the panopoly from Haas/Haugen/Janco/Verdi ad infinatum settings actually detract from the function of the modest form called the "responsorial." Unlike chanting the Gradual, which presumes the meditative disposition as a primary function, singing a metered and hook-laden long response which then can meander for five minutes or more, seems more disabling than enabling to a congregation who will fully engage. The Alstott version of 22/23 is, by that criterium FAR superior to the sentimental inclination to "feather in" "Shepherd me, O God," or "Because the Lord is my shepherd." But the latter examples also have emotional baggage for many PIPs (that's not said as a "bad thing") that I believe keeps them earthbound because of their popular nature. The Alstott is utilitarian, end of argument.
*An argument for a sort of rotation of independent resources such as AOZ's, Artistotle's or even the SEP's requires a choice as to whether they can be enjoined without a visual copy in hand or projected. Having been disabled from singing yesterday at a Napa parish as all the sandwich songs were from a WORDS only edition of SPIRIT AND SONG (arggh,) it is not reasonable to expect any congregation to sing even the most modest of chanted responses without the notation, round or square in hand or visible.
*The argument against the immediate above is within the defense above. No notated music available is prima facie inhospitable.

Lastly, to finish off my experience yesterday of an actual Sunday visit elsewhere, the use of the Alstott setting of "I love You, Lord my strenght" was perhaps the most Catholic-ly corrrect repertoire choice the little worship team (arggh) made. They were competent, if a bit breathily precious. The pianist playing a faux digital grand was more than competent and fleshed out accompaniments with very good discretion. But that R&A psalm was the only thing I could sing yesterday! Ridonculous! But I thanked God for it.