My question would be. If it is possible for an entire congregation to chant the gradual straight through on the psalm tone or recto tono (which it is) - could you do that and would it still be called a gradual psalm?

I would probably call it based on its function. If sung through, a gradual, if responded to, a responsorial psalm.

Please correct, me. This is an interesting point :)

The responsorial psalm is already called the gradual:

The responsorial psalm, also called the gradual, has great liturgical and pastoral significance because it is an "integral part of the liturgy of the word." (General Introduction to the Lectionary, 19)

Yes, the responsorial psalm does not have to be sung responsorially, but it is the preferred way of singing the psalm:

In responsorial singing, which, as far as possible, is to be given preference, the psalmist, or cantor of the psalm, sings the psalm verse and the whole congregation joins in by singing the response. (GIL, 20)

The responsorial form might have become dominant in the vernacular liturgy, because

the responsorial Psalm should correspond to each reading and should, as a rule, be taken from the Lectionary. (GIRM, 61)

It is quite possible that the Responsorial Psalm is called such not because it is usually sung in a response-verse-response form, but because it "responds to" the readings. At least in musicological classifications of chant, the Gradual, Alleluia, and Responsory in the Divine Office are all considered responsorial chants, precisely because they respond to readings from the Bible. "Responsorial" is therefore a good way to refer to the psalm that immediately follows the first reading.

I mean at some point to write an article on this, but my opinion is that the Responsorial Psalm and Lectionary Alleluias are a logistical disaster.

Here we have a very large body of texts for singing but no actual music in the rite for them. We amplify the people who sing the texts, and usually put them up in the front (indeed, “Built of Living Stones” confirms a preference for the psalm to be sung from the ambo). Because it’s amplified solo singing, we need to use our best singers for these, but the actual music that we set the texts to tends to be simplistic—it has to be since very few places hire professional singers who could learn freshly-composed music each Sunday, let alone the weekdays!

So, people have extrapolated “cantor” as a separate liturgical function on its own, with this fanciful notion that the manner in which one raises one’s arm and looks invitingly will somehow coax otherwise vocally inert congregants to repent of their voiceless ways and join in the singing. It’s kind of an outrageous idea, if you consider that, decades after that practice started, Catholics still probably have worse congregational singing than most mainline Protestant churches—the ones that bother with hymnody at all, that is.

So, now we have entire Masses where our best singers sing the congregation’s part into a microphone. Supposedly it encourages the folks in pews to sing, but of course it also covers up the awkwardness when they don’t.

Because of there being such musical action at the front of the church, we have lots of new churches built with the organ and choir areas in the front. This flies in the face of all good acoustical sense, which necessitates amplifying the choir as well as the “cantor”, and flagrantly puts the music “on display” as well.

The thing is, if you take the RP and Lectionary Alleluia out of the equation, the strangeness of it all comes into relief: if the “cantor” is just singing the congregation’s part, why the need to rehearse? Use amplification to teach, of course, but if you’re picking music consistently that the people don’t know how to sing, then there is something else wrong that a microphone won’t fix. If no rehearsal, then why bother with the cantor at all?

When you take these two “problem children” out, then you arrive at a much more musically gainful position where the best singers will join the choir, which will facilitate a strong choral program. With no amplification, you force yourself to plan congregational music conservatively: stuff that’s written well for congregations and that they likely know already. If you’re very lucky, you’ll work for a priest who recognizes his own crucial role in encouraging the singing by singing his own part.

Since the GIRM uses the term "cantor" (at #104), there seems to be adequate official approval for the idea that it is a liturgical role.

104. It is fitting that there be a cantor or a choir director to direct and support the people’s singing. Indeed, when there is no choir, it is up to the cantor to direct the different chants, with the people taking the part proper to them.

One wonders how Protestants ever sang without GIRM 104 telling them how it should be done …

Snark aside :), consider MS’s three levels of singing:

1) short responses are easy and don’t need prompting
2) if people can sing “Happy Birthday”, they can sing most, if not all, of the Ordinary
3) the Proper is not idiomatic to a congregation, with or without help

@MichaelDickson: Thank you for your post. I’ve perhaps made my case more “literally” than I intended.

I don’t mean to say that RPs are disastrous everywhere. It’s that, because they entail logistical requirements foreign to the rest of the parts of the Mass, and are so comparatively short, they tend toward the problematic by encouraging us to find other things in the Mass for these people to do. The fact that there’s then a lot for such people to do encourages singers to hold the role of cantor in high esteem, even if the music is actually of much less challenge than what the choir does.

… the cantor leads the refrain, but also sings the verses. … And what rehearsal are you talking about?

Yes, the cantor sings the verses of the psalm and Alleluia, but how much musical material is this? Not much, really, and almost invariably light on the musical “substance” as well. (The rehearsal I mean is that with the cantor, which has been standard fare where I’ve seen.)

Serving as cantor for the propers of the mass doesn't preclude being a member of the choir.

Indeed. But the cantor for the Mass propers also has relatively little solo singing to do, unless you’re doing the melismatic chants as solos. Even so, this doesn’t normally require amplification and doesn’t place you in the front to do all of the cueing.

Also, I'm having trouble seeing the connection between a programming 'conservative' … congregational music and the responsorial psalm.

It’s not so much that as what seems a natural opposition between idiomatic (i.e., “conservative”) congregational music and amplified songleaders. (Amplified songleaders being the “something else” for a psalmist to do.) In my experience, the songleader stuff tends to push things in the direction of musical interest because musicians who choose badly written congregational music do not see their choices fail as acutely. That’s how “Be Not Afraid”, with its long, sustained melody notes, and its ilk remain widely used. On the other hand, idiomatic congregational music, pretty much by definition, isn’t all that “interesting” musically—or else folks in pews can’t sing it (or just won’t try).

Your last paragraph really sounds like your parish does a lot of things well—bravo! Maybe if I had more exposure to such places I’d see things differently, but my sense is that you’re in an unusually good situation. At least, I’m not aware of anyplace in my own diocese (one of the U.S.’s largest) where amplified songleaders do not consistently overpower the congregation.

Let me ask you, though: at Masses without a choir, is there still an organist? What would happen if you weren’t there? Don’t you think the congregation could still “Happy Birthday” their way through the Ordinary and hymns given instrumental accompaniment—especially as this is the practice in other Western Christian ritual traditions?

Maybe the most “sticking” question is: why is it only Roman Rite Catholics who have the songleaders? (It surely is not because we have the best congregational singing!)

... and that's not even touching the fact that the congregation's principal musical duty is the responses, which I very rarely see needing amplification.

And...to answer my own question (with your help) what I was missing is that there are cantors who behave like 'song leaders'. That's really not how we operate. Our congregation is nothing special, musically, but they can sing the songs on their own, certainly.

To address a different point -- we don't rehearse (unless we ask for it). The DoM sends us the material on Monday, and we are expected to be ready by mass. If we have any questions, we can ask her before or after our regular choir rehearsal, which is Wednesday night.

Having the whole congregation sing the psalm seems to be one trend in the liturgical movement. Gelineau, Bevenot and Murray were pointing in that direction. But don't the official books explicitly suggest not doing that? There is a tension which has come about with near universal literacy, between allowing the congregation freedom to worship without burying our noses in pieces of paper, and engaging us fully with the texts.
Personally I would like to sing the verses at least at introit, offertory and communion, and have a cantor (or a choir) sing the response. There is another tension, if you treat the congregation as a schola, you have to direct them I think. That tempts some cantors into self important ostentation.

Antiphons can be shortened by using only a repetendum as subsequent refrains.

In the history of the Church, did the congregation ever sing in directum?

As to the "Cantor" being a new thing, it most certainly is not. The cantors are members of the choir or schola cantorum who sing incipits and also the first part of psalm verses. It was also the case where cantors would sing in alternatum with the rest of choir and/or congregation for longer chants such as the Gloria and Credo.