Thanks @monasteryliturgist, it might be something I half-remembered from the 1970s.

@probe maybe you could check Gelineau Psalms- it seems like something from there?

...works as..."

I refute that robustly!

Not that one, @SponsaChristi :)

You sure about that? It sounds pretty legit to me.

@sponsachristi I'm sure it's legit, C&W is just not my personal taste.

simplified Anglican chant is
Reciting note 123
Reciting note 123
Reciting note 123
Reciting note 123
Despised by some, used by many.

Simplified Anglican Chant has been on the scene since the mid 50s. It was disigned for congregational chanting, and should never be confused with Anglican Chant which is largely the domain of Cathedral Choirs, although come congregations in England, Canada, and the US have learned how to sing it, with differing results.

Okay.
Anglican chant is indeed for choirs, not for the people, and for the psalms of the office - not for the mass. That isn't to say that its use with responsorial psalms and such cannot produce admirable results. So called 'simplified Anglican chant' is so simple that it is insulting; but then, so are some other chant repertories (I shan't name names) current in Catholic usage.

Seeing as we're talking about the reciting notes, I'd like to ask:
If I'm singing two phrases for Psalm 121/122 to these two lines:

I rejoiced when I heard them say:
‘Let us go to God’s house.’

In Tone 8 I bold the re in the first line.
But that feels like an unnecessary emphasis on 'heard' to me. I feel that after the so-la incipit, I feel I should stay on do until the word 'to' next line where I go down to ti.
Or, stay on the reciting tone for one long first line, (does that sound more Anglican to you?) so that I go up to re for 'God's'. Making them two long lines

I rejoiced when I heard them say: ‘Let us go to God’s house.’
And now our feet are standing within your gates, O Jerusalem.

I imagine it's my choice, but I'd like to ask for more informed opinions.

From the mid 70s for about a decade I went regularly to Sunday Morning Prayer at Westminster Cathedral, and often EPI on Saturday, both of which were in English and congregational using Bevenot tones. I found the tones to have just about enough variety to use without tedium, and simple enough that the casual visitor could pick them up.
Returning after a few years I found that the DM had increased the rest at the end of each phrase (half verse) to match some Anglican ideas. Bevenot notated a quarter note (crotchet) rest, a longer pause destroys the natural rhythm of the poetry,

From a 2009 thread https://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/1880/gregorian-psalmody/p1 a useful article by Bruce E Ford (3rd post) includes

But five other patterns that are anomalous in Latin occur in English with great
regularity.
5. Náme of the Lórd
6. wórds be-hínd your báck
7. greát Gód
8. greát mýstery
9. goód shépherd
The “Procustean bed” approach to pointing that the modern chant books prescribe,
when employed with English texts, impairs declamation far more than it does when
it is employed Latin texts because the frequency with which the formulas do not fit
English texts is much greater. If we are unwilling to adjust the psalm tones to
make them accommodate English texts, we ought not to use them to set
English texts, because their very purpose is to facilitate good declamation.
Some contemporary musicians have composed new modal recitation formulas
designed especially for English texts. Many who have experimented with these
tones, however, find them less satisfying than the “Gregorian” psalm tones. An
effort to adjust the “Gregorian” psalm tones to the requirements of English diction,
therefore, seems warranted. I have found that the difficulties involved are not
insurmountable.

My emphasis
Paul F Ford in the intro to By Flowing Waters, and Fr Samuel Weber in various places including the intro to Propers of the Mass have similar analyses.

I HATE that. Very, very few people do it in Latin, so when English chanters use it, I'm thrown off.

I would treat it as a dactyl like monasteryliturgist does. Only if there's no way to fit the formula in English do I adjust, but otherwise I adjust the English accent. The name of the Lord, for example. Sorry-not-sorry.

Luckily, Matthew, I don't care for your opinion.

if I said that so directly to someone, I'd be crucified on this forum. I have a reputation for being direct, maybe stubborn, maybe too opinionated. But actually rude like that? Never, or at least not very often when it would be very easy for me to be so.

There are a few of you who can't refrain from saying rude things to me, and at least one of you who ignores me. Good riddance then, I guess. (He's said as much in a public post, it's not a secret or a problem that I'm posting this.)

You (and I'm speaking not just to you) can whine that I've been fortunate to carve out places for myself in the church (at great cost, without knowing a thing about me and my own life—I once told some catechumens and candidates that our corner is full of mentally ill persons, not to mock them or to suggest that they were like us because we were crazy, but because it's where they found healing, and it got laughs because it's true; I'm surely not the only struggling one here). But when you have some experience it counts for something?

Anyway, there was a stretch when I didn't make it to a TLM I'd go to the Ordinariate Mass where they used a responsorial psalm more often than not, and where it was sung to tone 2 or 8, because they wanted congregational singing, they wanted to align with the NO, and they felt that the Gregorian tone was a better option. Whatever, not my monkey or circus in the long run, so I zipped it. But they did this for the monosyllables, and it was a bit of a mess: those who had never sung Latin and were in the choir expected it, those of us used to Latin and expected to sing from the congregation were unprepared every time (since it wasn't like we'd scan the psalm ahead of time as I do with my schola during the weekly rehearsal before public Sunday Vespers).

No, it’s not better. The sarcasm is obvious. You were actually rude to me. At the very least, I gave a constructive reason even after being annoyed and actually agreed with someone else who’d already posted.

As I said, I’d be crucified for this direct rudeness. But really, it was just not that big of a deal— you don’t have to believe me, but you took the time twice to be rude to me. I won’t stand for it when you could do, as I often do, erase the message in the end. What is wrong with you? Seriously— you had what amounted to a temper tantrum, and I’m not gonna stand for it.

Also at least one sparring partner here has met me in real life and he’s at least as assertive as I am online but it’s fine, he was very nice and has been helpful to me. So I will absolutely not take the feedback that I’m rude and dismissive especially not after the actually rude comment that came first.

I think the problem is that it’s a deviation. Tone VII is what it is; you have to return to the reciting tone from the mediant, but if you aren’t expecting it and have to figure it out on the fly…

Indeed in tone VII there are a few endings (in Latin, at least) where you have to account for extra notes after the first final accent… so you will make mistakes. But repetition smooths it out (even if we only get that psalm, 111, in that tone once a year or maybe twice). But I am so used to just ignoring monosyllables that having to scan the whole psalm in between verses after that mistake would become necessary.

the Plainsong Psalter makes extensive use of the abrupt mediation

And, to repeat myself, is a good reason for not attempting the Procrustean fitting of English texts to chant designed for Latin. We have modern chant styles devised for this, as well as Anglican chant. I agree with Matthew, disconcerting the chanters is a blunder.

@probe I dont know if its at all helpful- these are terrible recordings (hopefully its clear enough to get the idea) I made years ago for another community to learn chant-singing the same psalm in all the tones- just to show how you can apply it to all the tones using the same markings.

And yeah, its not always perfect, but if you want to stay consistent its a nice method. It works for us here at least.

I know Latin would be the best, but If I have to sing in English- Im glad to keep the traditional tones-they just help me pray so much better

__________________

When I call, answer me, O God of justice;
from anguish you released me, have mercy and hear me!
O men, how long will your hearts be closed,
will you love what is futile and seek what is false?
It is the Lord who grants favors to those whom he loves;
the Lord hears me whenever I call him.
Fear him; do not sin: ponder on your bed and be still.
Make justice your sacrifice, and trust in the Lord.
“What can bring us happiness?” many say.
Let the light of your face shine on us, O Lord.
You have put into my heart a greater joy
than they have from abundance of corn and new wine.
I will lie down in peace and sleep comes at once
for you alone, Lord, make me dwell in safety.
Glory to the Father, and to the Son,
and to the Holy Spirit:
as it was in the beginning, is now,
and will be for ever. Amen.

The latter.

Easily the worst of the three solutions.

this is the kind of thing I recall from the Evangelical Lutheran Book of Worship, and perhaps also in the United Methodist Hymnal

Clearly, there have been many attempts to make it possible for an untrained congregation to sing the Psalms with little or no preparation.
The ELW/ELCA/LBW tones are quite workable, but sometimes they have the cadance move on an un-accented syllable, which I don't care for very much. There is always one syllable (only) to every note, save for the final, which can have multiple syllables. Not always too attractive. However, ELCA congregations sing it enthusiastically.
I'm uncertain about what the various tones are in the UMH.

Much to learn here. I have now rehearsed Psalm 121(122) in English with Gregorian Tone 8 and with Bévenot Tone 1. I find it difficult, even with the pointing marked in the text, to keep Tone 8 going without feeling an awkward placement of the accents. Bévenot works for me and feels more natural. As this is my first time as a cantor in public, I think it would more prudent, rather than adopting the Procrustean approach with Tone 8, to take advantage of any help that muscle memory of Bévenot can give me to sing without hesitation. I gather from the discussion that Tone 8 works in Latin, and having tried it with the Latin text, I am inclined to agree, but it does need marking up the text.

Well, let's try Tone 8 again. I attach my gabc and pdf files. Does that look like how the English words should be set?

You might study the pointing methods of Richard Rice, particularly in his “Sacrifice of Praise” for Vespers and his “Hostia Landis” for the Mass. He uses the psalm tones from the Liber and points the English words to fit following a regular set of rules for pointing.

I would make these changes if it was me. but its very nice otherwise

@davido's option "b" (abrupt mediant) works but it does feel like a return to do is needed. I could carry on without a break, as the second line always begins with do and it would feel part of the pattern.

How about putting a re-do melisma on the monosyllabic end words like "Frie-nds", "Lo-rd", "pra-y"?
@monasteryliturgist that would also avoid putting the musical accent on weak words like 'in' and 'and'.

I'll write down whatever I decide so I don't accidentally improvise on the day and get lost.

In Rome? Was that in the Pontifical Institute? Our choir (we can call ourselves a schola soon :) ) uses the PIMS videos by Fr. Robert Mehlhart.