Look into the psalms by Michael Guimont, published by GIA. They're appropriate for band, organ, or even a capella, and uniformly well-composed.

Welcome to the forum! You will find that the vast majority of people here don't seem to have an understanding that in the realities of the church music world, some people are required to do "contemporary" music, and so you will find that almost everyone will try and convince you to incorporate "chant-like" music, whatever the cost. If this is a possibility for you, that is wonderful, but it sounds like your hands may be tied, so if that is the case, then I would like to point you in the direction of ILP music's Psalm collection-

http://www.ilpmusic.org/category/PsalmsC.html

They are for the most part, rather nice, lectionary-conforming, Psalms that are in a contemporary style, that were written with a "band" in mind.
I don't think they have yet the music sampler for Year C, but you can listen at the below link to some examples from Year B.

http://www.ilpmusic.org/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Session_ID=7736db6cf8c98eaba6c949a3155ac9d4&Screen=PROD&Store_Code=VA&Product_Code=CD3405&Category_Code=sihpcds

The Responsorial Psalm, however, was never meant to be performed by a "band". Furthermore, songs should not substitute the Responsorial Psalm. Here are the relevent citations from the authoritative documents:

GIRM:
(61--end of section) In the Dioceses of the United States of America, instead of the Psalm assigned in the Lectionary, there may be sung either the Responsorial Gradual from the Graduale Romanum, or the Responsorial Psalm or the Alleluia Psalm from the Graduale Simplex, as described in these books, or an antiphon and Psalm from another collection of Psalms and antiphons, including Psalms arranged in metrical form, providing that they have been approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop. Songs or hymns may not be used in place of the Responsorial Psalm

Redemptionis Sacramentum:
[59.] The reprobated practice by which Priests, Deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease. For in doing thus, they render the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy unstable, and not infrequently distort the authentic meaning of the Liturgy.

[62.] It is also illicit to omit or to substitute the prescribed biblical readings on one's own initiative, and especially "to substitute other, non-biblical texts for the readings and responsorial Psalm, which contain the word of God".138

I hope these references help the OP.

Pretty sure there is no part of the Mass that was "meant" to be performed by an orchestra, either.

I have a pastor who sight sings better than I do, and who was a fairly decent organist in his younger days. He has banned the Celtic Alleluia, with the statement that he doesn't want that trash in his church. Misa Luna is also on the banned list. He said he never thought he would hear anything that made Mass of Creation sound good until he heard Misa Luna. I like the way he thinks!

We had a visiting early music group that sang a mass by a a late 16th, early 17th century Spanish composer. It had a guitar part and was just lovely. Used like that, the instrument is appropriate for liturgy.

Good correction on the Blues--it's the passing tone. But it comes from the whole mix of Scotch-Irish and African peoples in the South.

Of course, what I am saying is that I don't know why pagan love totems like Sting can write good chant music but our people come up with the Celtic Alleluia!! But we have wandered far afield.

Kenneth

If you read the portions of the document that I cited, you will find that Church law does not give the pastor the right to change parts of the Mass, including the psalm. In fact, the GIRM outright prohibits it.

If there is any doubt about this, here is one more reference:

Sacrosanctum Concilium:
3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority.

Redemptionis Sacramentum reaffirms this:
[11.] The Mystery of the Eucharist "is too great for anyone to permit himself to treat it according to his own whim, so that its sacredness and its universal ordering would be obscured".27 On the contrary, anyone who acts thus by giving free rein to his own inclinations, even if he is a Priest, injures the substantial unity of the Roman Rite, which ought to be vigorously preserved,28 and becomes responsible for actions that are in no way consistent with the hunger and thirst for the living God that is experienced by the people today. Nor do such actions serve authentic pastoral care or proper liturgical renewal; instead, they deprive Christ's faithful of their patrimony and their heritage. For arbitrary actions are not conducive to true renewal,29 but are detrimental to the right of Christ's faithful to a liturgical celebration that is an expression of the Church's life in accordance with her tradition and discipline. In the end, they introduce elements of distortion and disharmony into the very celebration of the Eucharist, which is oriented in its own lofty way and by its very nature to signifying and wondrously bringing about the communion of divine life and the unity of the People of God.30 The result is uncertainty in matters of doctrine, perplexity and scandal on the part of the People of God, and, almost as a necessary consequence, vigorous opposition, all of which greatly confuse and sadden many of Christ's faithful in this age of ours when Christian life is often particularly difficult on account of the inroads of "secularization" as well.31

[12.] On the contrary, it is the right of all of Christ's faithful that the Liturgy, and in particular the celebration of Holy Mass, should truly be as the Church wishes, according to her stipulations as prescribed in the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms. Likewise, the Catholic people have the right that the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass should be celebrated for them in an integral manner, according to the entire doctrine of the Church's Magisterium. Finally, it is the Catholic community's right that the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist should be carried out for it in such a manner that it truly stands out as a sacrament of unity, to the exclusion of all blemishes and actions that might engender divisions and factions in the Church.32

We have spoken psalms at our 7:00 a.m. mass on Sundays. For some reason, none of our cantors want to attend mass that early. They point out that no one in their right mind would, either. We sing the psalms at the other three morning masses.

The attendance at the early mass hovers around 60-70. However, it is attended by the older, well-heeled crowd. A big part of the parish budget is funded by these folks. They didn't even want music when I took the job 11 years ago. I keep it simple, do two hymns, and play the quieter organ literature which they seem to like.

I was under the impression that the psalm should be sung as a norm, though I don't recall where that was so legislated. I could be wrong about that, but I'm wondering why it should not be.

I think spoken at 7:00 or Saturday Masses is a good idea, but other Masses should have it sung - so as to INCREASE active participation, namely by allowing them to participate in the melodies of the respond (vocally), and in the melody of the verses (interiorily, if that be a word).

Benedict gal is of course absolutely correct and that is kind of first things first. However, I don't think Daniel is in a position to do very much about it. His request for prayer should be honored. However, let's move that over to a separate question, and ask people out there if they have had to deal with the priest who changes the Macscott his own authority.

Daniel, is yours a paid position or is it voluntary?

The reason I ask this is because, as a matter of conscience, I cannot do something that goes completely against the GIRM and the authoritative documents of the Church (Sacrosanctum Concilium, Redemptionis Sacramentum). Wrong is wrong.

The matter of substituting the psalm is something that needs to be addressed immediately. It is a non-negotiable. It is not a matter of saying that you are right and he is wrong. Rather, it is a matter of fidelity to what the Church requires.

No worries, FNJ, I'm on your page with your last maxim.
Ach, the perils of internet discourse are well known to me as many have of late reminded and remanded.
What's more, I unequivocally, willingly, purposefully, yea even profuseLY,,,,agREE with BG on this subject.
And did the walls come a-tumblin' down....

at times mass without 'music' is better