I have used it occasionally, when the nature of the chants makes it useful, for example, I am using it for an upcoming retreat where the rehearsal will be an hour long, one day before Mass. But not on any regular basis.

I have use By Flowing Waters but not the Latin Simplex

I know of no parish that uses By Flowing Waters exclusively but somewhere near 20,000 copies have sold. The women's schola of the Cathedral of Saint James in Seattle uses it at Sunday Mass. We use it weekly at my seminary and I hear that other seminaries use it as well.

"The musicians who point out that [the GS] is a mutilation of Gregorian chant as well as a misunderstanding of the relationship between text and musical setting with reference to form" are in error; the chants come from the antiphonals and from other ancient resources.

What is wrong with using the "antiphon melodies from the office as settings for texts of the Mass"? Aren't the texts primary?

I hope that Msgr. Schuler last comment was not directed to By Flowing Waters. Does anyone know?

It is near-impossible to lay your hands on the Simplex anyway.

What do you mean?

It's very intriguing to me that this book exists, that it remains the #2 option for the Roman Rite in most cases, and yet no parish can be identified as using it on a regular basis. There are plenty of parishes that use the #1 option and a plethora of parishes that use #4... but #2 is somehow just missing from the earth...

I've heard the argument that if a parish can use the Simplex, they could probably do the GR and should. While yes, they should use the GR if they can - there are really no choirs in transition that can't quite get to the GR yet and are using the Simplex regularly?

It just boggles my mind when I think about it.

When my parish reformed the music program, I actually used the GS for a bit for the schola Mass. What made it most difficult was printing all the translations in weekly programs or seasonal booklets (we tried both). It's ostensibly for parishes without the resources to prepare the GR chants, but you have to have the resources to get the translations out there (unless, of course, your congregation (a) is fluent in Latin or (b) doesn't care about knowing the translation).

Then we got the Vatican II Hymnal, and it was clear that a much better option would be to use the SEP, since these texts were already in the Hymnal, and they were simple enough when we could not prepare the GR chants. CCW posting simplified versions of the graduals, alleluias, and tracts (from Chants Abreges or Richard Rice) have also been a huge help.

So to me, the GS no longer has the ability to fulfill its original purpose, since I can achieve the same result (propers, chanted to mostly syllabic settings) for no cost except toner and copy paper, and the texts (in whatever language) are already in the pew.

The G.S. is used weekly at Our Lady of Fatima Parish in Seattle.

I use both BFW and Aristotle's excellent settings frequently here in Lawton, OK, in addition to my own adaptations of the original melodies. I think the GS is designed to facilitate congregational singing, and it is useful for this. Especially the real "responsorial" style of psalmody: I find that BFW really hits the mark for immediate participation from the faithful. Sometimes I have adapted or created my own settings when I disagreed with Dr. Ford's choices, but the GS is an under-utilised resource for many of us.

I use it on a daily basis (week day masses), but I can't find any accompaniment; So I have to invent it on the spot and that's sometimes a bit sloppy.

About the fact that there isn't one available: I print the antiphons (and psalms) I need.

I've started using BFW a little more often. I was using the SEP mostly. Some of the melodies are quite pleasing such as one of the introits for the Common of Holy Women "Justice You love and wickedness You hate..." I prefer to use this over the same SEP text.