_"Il est un air pour qui je donnerais Tout Rossini, tout Mozart, et tout Weber, Un air tres-vieux, languissant et funebre, Qui pour moi seul a des charmes secrets."_ And now let us dispassionately, if possible, regard the evidence. Richard Strauss's _Alpine Symphony_, admittedly one of his weakest works and considered very tiresome even by ardent Straussians, plays for nearly an hour while any one can sing _Der Erlkonig_ in three minutes. Are short compositions better than long ones? Answer: _Love me and the World is Mine_ is a short song (although it seldom sounds so) while Schubert's _C major Symphony_ is called the "symphony of heavenly length." Is what is new better than what is old? Is what is old better than what is new? Schoenberg is new; is he therefor to be considered better than Beethoven? Stravinsky is new; is he therefor to be considered worse than Liszt? Is an opera better than a song? Compare _Pagliacci_ and Strauss's _Standchen_. Is a string quartet better than a piece for the piano? But I grow weary.... Under the circumstances it would seem that if you have any strong opinions about music you are perfectly entitled to them, for the critics do not agree and you will find many of them basing their criticism on some of the various hypotheses I have advanced. H. T. Finck tells us that the sonata form is illogical, forgetting perhaps that once it served its purpose; Jean Marnold dubbed _Armide_ an _oeuvre batarde_; John F. Runciman called _Parsifal_ "decrepit stuff," while Ernest Newman assures us that it is "marvellous"; Pierre Lalo and Philip Hale disagree on the subject of Debussy's _La Mer_ while W. J. Henderson and James Huneker wrangle over Richard Strauss's _Don Quixote_.