MJO, I see your point now. I was talking about contrasting existing musical forms and you are talking about forms that have yet to exist. I understand your dream now, and while I don't share it I'm not strictly against it.

Clemens, I had a very similar personal experience as you did. And agreed, I still use the RP when desired by the celebrant.

Charles, what a silly idea that the sacred art given in the Gradual is for the singer. That's like saying the finest stained glass is for its designer or that the splendor of wall-to-wall icons are for the icon writers.

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.

Indeed, let's do be honest. But in order to do so, we ought to qualify from what perspective do we speak. I'm convinced, reinforced by the mistaken-notion of retorts often found in threads such as this, that many critiques and castigations are thrown about via some measure of global, unverifiable presumptions. Even the venerable MACW attests to the gist of my earlier contention, though her proclivities are also well-documented. Has the RP been a success, in the average parish (as well as presumably major cathedrals/basilicas?) Well, what criteria determines that success? If I say that the drivel (from Gelineau to Deiss to Alstott to Guimont) has faired extremely well in the four decades of my tenures, and in point of fact congregations take up those antiphons quite audibily and aren't snoring when the Psalmist renders the verses...and.....I've seen this live elsewhere, videocast from St. Peter's (with generally stunning Italian tenor seminarians as the Psalmist) repeatedly, does that indicate its success? If I likewise cite poor execution from BIC under previous directorship by a noted composer's wife as Psalmist, or a whispy-voiced folk singing soprano at St. Normal's, does that truly indicate dysfunction in the form of the RP itself? How is it that even at funerals and weddings replete with disparate congregations, it is not difficult at all to engage the singing of the RP? And what about bishops? What determines their intentionality regarding FCAP in episcopal Masses? Does anyone here actually think at this precise moment in this era that outside of a handful of liturgically interested bishops, the "average" bishop will risk capital by having a gradual or melismatic alleluia verse canted (and in what language? as they seem, to me, to be very inclined towards politically correct polyglot inclusivity?)
Am I incorrect that inserting the issue of a parish Solemn High Mass (which technically exists only in the EF,) which I take to mean more of what Mahrt calls the "Paradigmatic" Mass (see Jernberg, Paul-Mass of St. Philip Neri) bears little relevance to the thread discussion? However, I do concede and can vociferously attest to more than two decades worth of effort trying to persuade clerics, pastors and yes, bishops, that if they would reorient their own attitudes and actions towards that paradigm of which Mahrt evangelizes as well as Dr. Ford of Camarillo, and make the center of parish life begin and end at "WHAT HAPPENS AT THE ALTAR and AMBO," then ancillary issues addressed by pastors such as Mark White and his program "Rebuilt" would be more fully mitigated.
But, if we are being honest.....unless you have a pastor like Jeff Keyes, a bishop like Salvatore Cordileone or (you take the point, yes?)-- a musician, or even a constituency of liturgically adept and informed parishioners will, at best be trying to push the sitting donkey to rise and carry the Divine Liturgy into the New Jerusalem.
All of this quibbling and babble over "aspects" of the liturgy are not unlike treating symptoms, not the disease as often done in doctor offices everywhere. There's no Z-Pack that can transform intentionality on the part of worshippers, lay and cleric, at any "real" or "conceptual" level.

CR, I have. But I have also heard many where only my voice or that of the Psalmist is heard.
Which neither confirms nor disarms the argument for/against "success."

I am all for good responsorial psalm settings, and think the ones I am using have steadily improved over time. Does every parish do that? No, and they probably wont.

Something that always surfaces on this forum is someone telling us how we can get back to the EF, or that should be our goal or ideal. It isn't. The Latin Mass, or EF, badly needed reforming centuries before it actually was reformed. Perhaps if that had been done, the extremes resulting from the seventies update would not have happened. The reform could have been done in a much more orderly and logical fashion.

Graduals are lovely pieces of music, but I haven't found them relevant to the current rite or form. I am also not willing to stand on my head and do contortions to try and make them fit. And again, the EF is not my ideal or goal and I am glad to not use it. That doesn't make the OF perfect. It is far from it and still needs some work.

Staying out of the EF/OF debate, I find that when EF proponents talk about unity, what they really mean is uniformity. Not the same thing.

As for each parish doing their own thing, yes that is true to some degree. Psalm compositions can range from poor to well-composed. I try to chose the ones that are better. There are some good psalms available, including Chabanel and some Guimont compositions.

What makes you think EF parishes were always so great? I am old enough to remember how bland and generally awful the music was in many of them. Most parishes never rivaled the great cathedrals in music excellence, and they still don't.

Charles, what a silly idea that the sacred art given in the Gradual is for the singer. That's like saying the finest stained glass is for its designer or that the splendor of wall-to-wall icons are for the icon writers.

At some time, much in the liturgy of Trent became about the technicians and the people were frozen out. That was a significant reason behind liturgical reform. Granted, the reform went off track and didn't accomplish what it could have, but that is another matter. Consequently, the technicians gathered each week, performed lovely music for God, so they say, and did little to involve the people. What's wrong with this picture? There has to be a happy medium somewhere in the middle that is beautiful, reverent, and in which the people actually participate - no, just being there is not participation as some wrongly believe.

What I find, as an easterner, is that when I attend Divine Liturgy, the congregation owns that liturgy. It is theirs, they take pride in it, and willingly involve themselves in all aspects of it. On the other hand, when I play and conduct for the four Sunday morning masses at the RC parish, I often have a room full of spectators. There is one EF mass, but they are rather clannish and isolate themselves from the rest of the parish. I don't involve myself in the EF mass in any way.

I see that many of the forms from the older rite don't seem to mesh or fit with the current rite. I also don't see much way of making them fit. It would be a forced fit that few would be happy with, including the people in charge. Graduals, tracts, even at some points in the mass, propers don't incorporate well with the rite - shoulda and MS says being beside the point. The force of any document is only as good as the people willing to follow it.

So, how to create that sense of ownership, true participation - not just showing up - and the "buy-in" to the liturgy that would put life and relevance into it? There's the rub!

I think that Graduals, Tracts, etc. do mesh/fit with the OF, but mostly when the lessons and orations are chanted.

This. And the same for (sung) Responsorial Psalmody.

More .02 fwiw. Where I am, the RS is sung every day 7 days a week. On sundays, since there are so many settings, I use mix of chabanel,gel., guillmont. Am looking into the gradual re as MJO has shown. For weekdays
i have composed simple responses (sort of in the Proulx/gelenau mold)
AND the verses are set to one of the five mundelien psalm tones. All the cantors know these tones by heart and so rehearsal time is shortened.

Charles, I sometimes wonder if you consider your more polemical statements before you write them.
Shutting out the people?
Creeping clericalism?
And this from someone who defends a sacred liturgy which uses the iconostasis, where the people really are physically shut out, and where only clerics are allowed.
At least, that would be a worldly and modernistic way of looking at it. And it would be missing the point. As are you when you belittle our western traditions.

Would never belittle your western traditions. They were great, when most of you followed them.

Iconostasis: In some churches. All eastern churches do not have the sealed off altar area like the Russian church. Some are much more open with not much more of a barrier than a medieval rood screen would present. Interestingly, the original St. Peter's had a walled off altar area, according to Gamber. The altar was considered the Holy of Holies just like the Jewish temple in Jerusalem.

Clericalism: Yep, it's bad. Despite decrees from the emperor prohibiting the silent canon, those clerics took it on themselves to do it their way. Go figure.

Shutting out people: Music in the west generally became too complicated for congregations to sing, particularly the more melismatic and ornate music. Effectively, it did shut out participation by the people.

Participation: Numerous popes have called for increased congregational participation, including Pius X. For whatever reasons, it hasn't caught on.

Oh, it could definitely work better if those in authority could tie it all together and publish something as a guide.

the Lectionary is quite clear on the preference for the RP to be led from the ambo

"The psalm should be sung if at all possible" expresses a preference. "From the ambo or another suitable place" is more like a hint to those who may not have given the matter any thought.

Which, um, raises another question - if the psalm's vv. are sung by the choir, um, do all the choir members raise their hands high over their heads and do that little pirouette when it's time for the congregation to sing the responsory? Or maybe, um, just several appointed ones?