As you may already know, the copy available online on this (CMAA) site says that it was "Made available online with the gracious permission of The Community of Saint Mary the Virgin, Wantage"

Sounds like it's ok to release the GABCs so I've made the repository publically available
here.

If anyone happens to have the FIRST edition of “The Plainchant Gradual”, it would be hugely useful to have scanned or transcribed, as it contains chants for, e.g., weddings, which the 2nd edition doesn’t contain.

Someone on a mailing list sent me scans of the nuptial propers years ago; I don’t know what’s in the rest of the publication.

(The sisters at Wantage, when I wrote to them years ago about this, weren’t aware that there had been a prior edition.)

Yes, the nuptial propers are in The English Gradual,
which is/was the precursor of The Anglican Use Gradual

I'll repeat my plea for crowd-sourcing to complete the CPDL index to the Plainchant Gradual.

The GABCs are now available on GregoBase:
Parts I & II
Parts III & IV

Overall the adaptation is quite good. The chants are discreetly edited to fit the English text, which is largely taken from the KJV. It’s obviously difficult to place melismas on the same words in the English, and the proliferation of short words in English makes for a very different approach to text setting. But the editing is highly consistent, artistic, and arguably beautiful. From what I’ve seen, a good number of detractors have another—often their own—dog in the fight. There are also those who object to the hieratic (early modern) language. For those of us who will always find it jarring to call God “You”, it’s exactly right.

I like the PB and use it regularly. That said, it is occasionally a touch awkward, and sometimes I'm a little surprised when I reference the original chant to see certain things altered a little bit, but by and large, it is very faithful and well done. If you want full melismatic chant in english, I don't know that it can be beat. The only thing that is a stumbling block for some is that it uses KJV english, which I personally love, but some find outmoded. [edit: it's less about the style and more about a few of the antiquated translations that use words most people don't know these days like "mine travail"] Although, arguably, if you're interested in doing this type of chanting, the KJV english isn't a problem. It is not "perfect" and on one or two occasions in the last year I have done a little tweaking of notes or text to make it slightly more intelligible. That said, I think it should be republished in a newly-generated edition using the tremendous treasuretrove of GABC code that Andrew has so graciously provided.

The only thing that is a stumbling block for some is that it uses KJV english, which I personally love, but some find outmoded. [edit: it's less about the style and more about a few of the antiquated translations that use words most people don't know these days like "mine travail"]

Well, English isn't my mother tongue, but on the whole, I have no problem with KJ English.

@Schönbergian

I second what you said, chants can and do exist outside of just Latin, and I actually like other cultural renditions of known chants done to their own style.

I’d really like to sing the gradual in English instead of the responsorial psalm. In a spirit of Pope Francis liberality, can anyone who works with seminarians convince them that Palmer Burgess graduals are ok in the NO? So someday maybe I can use them?

I have heard some Catholic chant scholars wax disparagingly about chant adapted to languages other than Latin. One, very well known to and respected by many on this Forum (including me), who haughtily dismissed P-B as just careless and artless throwing of words and notes together. This assessment is, besides being highly subjective, more an out-of-hand denigration of anything Anglican than it is an honest and academic assessment of the virtues and genius of P-B. It has long been my observation that if one wishes to discredit and to illustrate how ugly (in his or her opinion) something is he or she will sing it deliberately uglily. On the other hand, the same music that is recognised as beautiful will be sung beautifully by those who perceive its beauty.

As for the language, what more needs to be said other than that it is an objectively beautiful tongue, hallowed by five hundred years of use in worship, and which is truly hieratic. Like 'church Latin' itself, this Old Church English (otherwise known as Prayer Book English) was created for no other purpose than for use in the worship of the All Holy. The average person living in those respective times would have thought that both of these were most extra-ordinary and eccentric - but not 'archaic', for, indeed, they both, understood by all to have a strictly sacred and Godly connexion, rise above time, place, or zeitgeist. Still, there are those (whose unfortunate lack of appreciation and taste I shan't, out of charity, attempt to describe here) who hold this treasure in low esteem, insisting that the language is 'archaic' (it is, indeed, historic, but it assuredly is not archaic), and that we should use only that language which, to them, is modern - for some, even modern street language.

If, indeed, one wants a modern language equivalent to P-B, well, there happens to be one, and a very good one at that. It is The American Gradual, the decades-long work of an Episcopalian chant scholar, one Bruce Ford. The language is that of the 1979 Prayer Book psalter, which is unrivaled (so far) as a ritual text in modern English. I have used this on some occasions and would recommend it highly to those who might require modern English. It is available 'on line' and may be had in both note head and chant notation versions. Our Forum member, Felipe Gaspar, collaborated with Bruce Ford on the chant notation version.

As Serviam has observed, Latin, sung to chants conceived originally for it, naturally has an ease of flow, a more natural fit, and a more gracious air about it than the same chant adapted to any other language. That is not, most definitely not, to say that the chant adapted to other languages is sui generis objectionable, not beautiful, clumsy, artless, or is a travesty. It isn't any of these things. As was pointed out by someone above, there are numerous chants in the chant repertory which appear with multiple texts, some even adapted from the original Greek. Further, there are chants here and there which one would have to admit are less than perfect partners with their texts. So, the argument that chant can or should be done only in Latin is specious. The French in North America even taught their Amerind friends how to sing chant in their own native languages. This is nothing new.

It is often said that English has no beautiful vowels, as if the Italians had a monopoly on beautiful vowels. Well, it does, and they don't. It takes a little sensitive practice to realise that English does have its own treasury of beautiful vowels - they are just different from those in other languages. If one wants to make something sound beautiful he will perform it beautifully. If he wants to 'demonstrate' that it is ugly he will perform it uglily.

I’d really love to refer people to Lásló Dobszay’s fantastic book: The Bugnini-Liturgy and the Reform of the Reform. There are excellent articles in the back of the book that deal with music specifically, including historical context and praxis of chant. He actually touches on the fact that chant has been adapted into the vernacular for centuries in certain cases. He also touches on the fact that various liturgical texts were not so rigidly wedded to specific chant melodies in earlier ages. With the relatively new editio vaticana and Solesmes editions we are lulled into a false sense of universality and rigidity. Ultimately I believe he’s espousing the view that to chant is better than to not chant, and that vernacular chant is legitimate, if not always “preferable”.