This has been bugging me for quite a while.
I think that I have an understanding of the 'Solesmes Method' but whenever I read something by Gajard or Mocquereau I'm left thinking that either
1 these Solesmes monks are incapable of communicating
or
2 that I don't really understand the method

Last night I was reading this http://jeandelalande.org/UPLOAD_to_LALANDE_LIBRARY/AoS_158.pdf Which Jeff Ostrowski has made available (thanks Jeff for all your work)
Gajard says that the sense of rhythm is not the result of contrast, stress-relaxation ( he says that this is Pothiers mistake). That the ictus has no special character (others have said it is just a organizational tool, if so whats the point it seems arbatrary?) He later contradicts himself by speaking of situations in which it is more or less pronounced. I find this chronic vagueness irritating.

My understanding of the method is this. There are notes designated as falls (ictic, thesis, touch points, repo)these occur every 2 or 3 notes. An elementary rhythm consists of 1 rise and 1 fall. these elementary rhythms are groups which are themselves rising or falling within a bigger rhythm and so on.

the sense of rising or falling is contributed to by certain characters.

Rising (arsis, elan, off ictus)- light, high, brief, active
Falling (thesis, repo, ictic)- stronger(but still light and unpronounced), low, long, restful

a rise wont necessarily have all the characteristics of a rise it is contrast which creates the undulating 'waves'

Am I wrong? Can anyone clarify the nature of the Ictus?