I strongly prefer the Gelineau/Guimont settings to the R & A.

Just a general comment re: the 3 or 4 nitpickers: I would cultivate them. Although they're being silly (ridiculous, actually) about this particular issue, they know something about music, and they care. I would totally listen to them, let them know that you hear their concerns, and talk to them on as elevated a level as they can reach, musically and liturgically speaking. It wouldn't hurt to ask them about their own musical background. I guess I'm basically suggesting flattery. They could end up being good friends to your program.

I don't really have much choice. The pastor insists psalms be from either the WLP missalette or RitualSong, which are the two items in the pews. He also insists the words and notes must match what the congregation is hearing from the choir/cantors. I am looking at Worship IV as a new hymnal because of the Guimont/Gelineau psalms- much preferable to the Haugen/Haas/Joncas in RitualSong.

I absolutely LOVE both the Gelineau and Guimont psalms. We use those two almost exclusively in my parish. They are very well crafted, musical, and seem to be an organic development from chant to modern music in English.

Remember, this is relative. I am comparing Guimont to Haugen/Haas/Joncas. There's one Joncas psalm in RitualSong called, "My soul is thirsting..." that sounds more like circling the wagons at a gypsy camp than something to use at mass. I know he was born too late to write scores for silent movies, which would have been a better match for him stylistically. However, Joncas has written some new psalms that are much better than his older works.

I'm new to this forum and am appreciating all of your comments. We use the Seasonal Missalette Resource published by WLP. I find many of their responses very musical and singable, but I too have been substituting Guimont/Gelineau on occasion. Some of the melodies speak to me. I usually look there if there is a psalm in the Missalette that is unfamiliar or difficult to sing. I haven't heard complaints, but I'm with the musician who says to listen to everyone's viewpoint. Thanks for this site. I'm learning a lot.

I rather like the Guimont and Gelineau psalm settings. We use them probably 70-80% of the time here at my place. Part of this has to do that I need one setting for the Masses I play (which are organ-based) and for the ensemble Mass. The verse pointing is almost always very good, while the tones/refrain melodies can vary. I particularly do not like when Guimont uses dominant V7 chords. OCP's collection by Fr. John Schiavone is ok, although the refrains are often bad.

It's a little ironic that we see Gelineau as "more traditional" when Gelineau, while not an iconoclast, certainly wasn't against upsetting the status quo!

I like Jeff's psalms for ccwatershed and a number of the other contributors. However (and I know all of them are on this board at one time or another, so I hope this comment is taken in context), I often find the text pointing questionable and the layout (a note per syllable) unsettles my eyes when I'm trying to sing them. I find myself getting very mechanical. I like Richard Rice's settings a lot, but often change almost all the cadences and terminations in the psalm tone (and don't do the intonation on every verse).

A number of the more chant-like settings you can find on ccwatershed are excellent (Aristotle's, Fr. Samuel, etc.) but I usually have to default to something less modal due to front-office concerns!

I never realized how much the R and A lenten Gospel Acclamation sounds so much like mary had a little lamb!! That's funny!! Haha.

.

Because we use Worship IV and I find the responses quite unsingable most of the time, I write the responses each week and the choir sings the verses to Anglican Chant or to Gregorian Psalm tones.

I've found that using Psalm tones from the Divine Office works pretty well.

I've also borrowed the Psalm tones used in the Simple English Propers to good effect.

You could reharmonize the antiphon and pair it with a more worthy psalm tone.

Anyone know of an audio demo of all the Saint Meinrad tones? A friend of mine would like to learn them. Best way is to spend two weeks praying with the monks at Saint Meinrad (like I did...felt comfortable with all the tones within a few days), but short of that, I wondered whether there's something online I've missed in my searches?

http://www.saintmeinrad.org/the-monastery/liturgical-music/downloads/

Good PR on the part of GIA, for one. But lest you think otherwise, the times are -a-changin. I visited a small parish in the heart of KY two weeks ago and there resting on the organ was the Chabanel psalm for the Sunday. I was ecstatic.

A little at a time.

How 'bout Arlene Oost-Zinner's "Parish Book of Psalms"? I find these to be very well done.

I am fortunate that as the largest parish in my part of the bourbon country of Kentucky, I get a lot of questions from smaller parishes about all sorts of things musical. I never hesitate to show them the resources available here and at other places that are free. And many are eager to learn.

Yeah, converting the baptized.......

What settings are other catholic church music directors currently using as well??

My parish's music director uses paraphrased psalms from the Psalms section of Gather - Second Edition. While this isn't preferred, it is allowed according to Sing to the Lord.

In my preference, I like the Lyric Psalter and sometimes Guimont Psalms.

I often give copies of the organ accompaniment to the choir since they don't like neumes, either. They sing just as well from the words in the accompaniment copy.

Thanks to all, historical and otherwise, for the info here. On looking through the settings already made, I don't see the need for my idea of the 'progressive psalms' mixing sight reading and the church year. Quick decision already to stick to sight singing in parts, maybe using some texts that are proper for various days.

I have heard some Respond An Acclaim, and while you many do not love it, I think they are simple and joyous. And not joyous when they should not be. Does this make sense?
Ph

(NOTE I EDITED QUEST. MARK)

From my perspective, the chain of authority is something like
Musician/Chorister>Cantor>Music Director>Priest/Deacon>Pastor>Bishop>USCCB>Vatican.
It seems changes or deviations to anything with regard to music can happen at any rung in the ladder, and corrections can come from either direction.
One of my parishes likes R+A because it matches whats in the missalette, and the chanting tone is preferred over the metrical sing song style the other parish seems to be mired with.
For the upcoming Schola Cantorum masses, I've still not decided, but I'm sure it'll be English-language responsorial psalms of a simple plainchant nature- probably not R+A. I'm going for the unaccompanied style, but time will tell how that goes over.

I use R+A because the Pastor has told me too. The reasons make sense, he wants what we sing to match (lyrics and melody) the OCP Today's Missal. He likes to be able to read the music while he sings. The only time I use LCM or PBP is for funerals, Weddings, First Friday's etc. when there is no set music in the missal.
Often times I have to make up my own because there is none to be had for First Friday.

Alstott's contibutions have intrinsic merit which few wish to discuss.

In general, or just in terms of the R&A Psalms?

In general, I agree; he could compose. And he's got a few things that are pretty nice.

In terms of R&A? There's maybe 2 or 3 of those, tops, that I find in any way decent. It's puzzling to me because he obviously COULD compose, as I mentioned above. Why, then, does that entire collection seem like it was composed in 24 hours?

PGA, we've so covered R&A here so many times, it's a bit like beating a carcass. I have no problem with your determining that 2/3 of his psalter are "decent," de gustibus and all that. But, there are so many factors in all of us individually or corporately making such determinations that I really don't see a point in, pardon pun, having more "point/counterpoint" arguments over psalter settings. WLP/Paluch have had a similar pulp missal out since the 70's and never has it gotten any attention. I used it when first coming up through the ranks, and they, as a body, are no better, no worse than R&A.
Yes, CMAA has the "Beautiful" criterium it advances, but we've proved it impossible to find consensus on issues such as this, and there aren't many current pastors out there who'd say "R&A's lame, so everyone chant the gradual from now on."