Ladies and Gentlemen,—I am surprised to find that it is just twenty-five years since I last had the honour of addressing this Society. Much water has flowed under London Bridge since that occasion, and the musical world—if not the Musical Association—has moved on. In 1888, I read a very modest paper on Cadences, describing the innovations of the then modern composers, Grieg, Liszt, and Wagner. I was felt to be a dangerous revolutionary—in fact, I was told so,—but seven years later someone did me the honour to paraphrase and repeat my paper, and it was received with equanimity. Now it reads like ancient history, and I believe I am considered quite a fogey. Well, as to that, I have at least endeavoured to keep up with the furious tide of innovation, and to that end have done what I may safely wager not many of my present hearers have done—namely, read through the entire Proceedings of the Musical Association, discussions and all, since its foundation. I am not going to criticise them, but from the very few papers on practical subjects I find that one stands out brilliantly before all the rest It was by my old friend, the late Dr. F. J. Sawyer, of Brighton, and the theme of his discourse was, “Why do we teach Harmony so badly?” In spite of the deep offence given to many by this trenchant inquiry, no one can deny that it did good. That paper was the cause of the publication of the two best text-books on Harmony the world has yet seen: those of Prout and Macpherson. No one can assert in the present day that Harmony is inadequately taught—except, of course, by the unmusical, whom no books can help. I wish I could feel as sure about Counterpoint But here I must carefully explain that my doubt relates not at all to the adequacy of the teachers, but entirely to the matter taught. I have been teaching Counterpoint for over thirty-five years, and have been long convinced that our ideas upon the subject need modernising. And what I mean by that I can only explain by a comparison.