You are fortunate in that you have no lamentable customs or ensconced personages to contend with. Singing the psalm to Anglican chant in alternation with a simple respond melody at your choir mass sounds really good. For the others, I don't believe that anything can touch the historical psalm tones. I would use these in preference to anything. You may have to point them yourself each week and compose simple responds, but there is literally nothing else that will contribute as well to the aesthetic of Catholic worship. They and the psalms simply 'belong together'. - (P.S. - I assume one of the first things you did was to unbolt and discard the microphone bolted to the organ console???!)

My advice would be to start off with the seasonal psalm. That will give people a chance to get used to it (although I tend to feel that a "gradual introduction" to the psalm is unnecessary given its ubiquity in Catholic practice!), and then you can move from there to the proper psalm.

On Chabanel, keep in mind there's setting by many composers. I tend to dislike Jeff's settings, but Arlene's are excellent and easy. Brian Page also has some very good ones posted, as do the Fords. I guess the question is what do you want to aim for? Good metrical refrains or a chant-like refrain? If the former, I recommend a seasonal Gelineau-type psalm followed by the Alstott Respond & Acclaim series, and then moving up to the more challenging Chabanel contributions and the Gelineau or Guimont books. If the latter, start with a seasonal setting by one of the Fords, then when they've mastered that move on to a weekly setting according to a psalm tone, or Arlene's contributions.

If you want to move towards the gradual, just do it.

I prefer the Gelineau and Guilmont psalm settings, both published by GIA. Many of the Guilmont refrains are very singable, even infectious, and the verse tones tend to be very lovely and haunting.

Good points both. I've talked to my rector about introducing the same at my (Episcopal) church, so this is also interesting to me.

Bruce,

Could you expound on the topic of the Gregorian graduals and their proper execution, or at least point me in the direction of good data? (I'm not familiar with McKinnon's writings, so that may be a good place to start).

ISTM that a fair number of OF parishes doing the NO in Latin and using the Gregorian Missal are rendering the chants incorrectly, based on what you've said above.

I think the Polish tone is one that someone made up. It doesn't sound like it came from an "official" source.

David Andrew wrote:
++++++++++
Bruce,

Could you expound on the topic of the Gregorian graduals and their proper execution, or at least point me in the direction of good data? (I'm not familiar with McKinnon's writings, so that may be a good place to start).

++++++++++
In the "praenotanda" of the 1974 Graduale we read:

Post primam lectionem dicitur Responsoriam Graduale a cantoribus vel a choro. Versus autem a cantoribus profertur usque ad finem... Quando autem opportunum videtur, licet repetere primam partem Responsorii usque ad versum.

Translation: After the first lesson the Gradual Respond is sung by the cantors or by the choir. The verse, however, is performed by the cantors all the way to the end... When it seems appropriate, it is permissible to repeat the first part of the responsory, up to the verse.

++++++++

The Respond may be sung by the whole choir. The verse is to be sung by the cantors. The number of cantors is not prescribed. Originally the verse was sung by a soloist. Later it was assigned to a number of cantors on feast days.
The responsorial character of the Gradual becomes evident only when the choir repeats the Respond after the cantors have sung the verse. In the case of today's Gradual, Priusquam te formarem, the text makes no sense unless the Respond is repeated.

++++++++++

In his final work, THE ADVENT PROJECT, James McKinnon, a well-respected chant historian, pointed out that in the fourth century the number of lessons read in the Liturgy of the Word varied widely from place to place, but that, regardless of the number of lessons read, only one psalm was ever included. He deduced, therefore, that the psalm in the Liturgy of the Word was not originally a response to a lesson but a lesson in its own right.

He hypothesized that because of their lyrical character, the psalms came to be sung to more elaborate melodies than the other lessons, and that responses were introduced as a festal adornment. (The tracts, used in Lent, still do not include responses but are sung in directum.)

The graduals of the developed Gregorian repertory bear no stylistic resemblance to lessons. Nevertheless, throughout the middle ages the gradual verses continued to be sung from ambones or lecterns, while the members of the choir sang the responds from their stalls.

The current Roman rubrics do not say where the cantor(s) should stand when the sing the elaborate gradual verses. Tradition, however, support their standing at the ambo.

The responsorial psalms of the novus ordo have regained the character of lessons (with responses), the GIRM indicates a clear preference for having their verses sung from the ambo by a soloist. It permits the soloist to stand "in some other suitable place" but does not mention the possibility of having the verses sung by the whole choir.

Does anyone else here feel that the responsorial psalm is a mistake? The more I sing them, the more I feel that the response interrupts the flow of the psalm text and music . I suspect, solely from my experience of Catholic and Anglican Office psalmody, that this was why the form dropped out of our liturgical tradition in the first place, and that its reintroduction is an archeoligism based on a spurious understanding of 'active participation'. Or maybe I'm just a grumpy old man ...

IanW, I have to agree. I would much rather sing the antiphon once, sing the verses straight through, then sing the antiphon at the end. Since the psalms and their format are mandated, I am sure I can't change them.

Jeffrey Tucker wrote:

"IanW, you are right. We are all making the best of a bad situation. The Gradual is what belongs between readings."

Why?

If the congregational refrains in a responsorial psalm constitute interruptions of the psalms, so do the the introit and communion antiphons. And isn't interruption preferable to excision, in any case. In the Gregorian graduals all but one of the psalm verses is excised.

Responsorial psalmody has helped to make the faithful more familiar with the psalter than they were before. The texts of the refrains, at least, have become emblazoned in their minds. Even the verses have begun to "stick." Last week I attended a Mass where the celebrant asked the people to recite the psalm verses in unison. While I detest "choral speaking," I found myself participating in the recitation because I knew the verses of Psalm 85 by heart.

Many of the faithful never participate in the Liturgy of the Hours. Their only exposure to psalmody is at Mass. The situation is different in monasteries. There the entire psalter is recited at regular intervals. It seems fitting, therefore, that the Gregorian graduals should be sung in place of responsorial psalms in monasteries. I think, however, that in most parish settings responsorial psalms are more appropriate.

Certainly the singing of a responsorial psalm (with the refrain set in the style of the office antiphons) is more satisfying than the perfunctory recitation of a gradual to a psalm tone. Before the introduction of responsorial psalmody the graduals were rarely sung to their proper melodies in parish churches. Sometimes they were sung to psalm tones. Often they were simply monotoned.

I hope that some day the Gregorian introits, offertories, communions, and possibly Alleluias (or vernacular adaptations of the same) will be sung everywhere. I also hope, however, that responsorial psalmody will be retained in most parish churches.

I'd agree with Bruce to some extent, but there are problems/differences. The Introits have evolved into only a few "key" verses being involved, interrupted by the Antiphon - but that's only for lengthy Processions. Never mind that such a Procession, being outside the Sanctuary, should be accompanied by a separate "Processional" chant or hymn!

In practice, the Responsorial Psalm verses we have been given are often chopped to pieces, and parts of verses omitted helter-skelter. I would prefer the verses to be complete and contiguous. Sing a section of the Psalm if you like, but don't put it through a textual grinder! (NB they couldn't even keep 8-verse sections of Ps. 118 together!!!) I think that some Responsorial Psalms work better than others, and that some should have an absolute minimum of interruptions. Others, the insertion of the Respond actually enhances the performance. To make them all look about the same is an obvious "cookie cutter" approach to Liturgy.