No, and yes. Just because something is a cliche doesn't mean it's crap. It just means it's no longer new or innovative. A blues lead on a pentatonic scale is a cliche. But it can be sublime, or it can be ridiculous. Any 12 bar blues is a cliche, but it can also be something incredibly moving, or boring crap. So, just because it's a cliche doesn't mean it's crap. However, the definition of "classic" is something timeless, something always current that has stood the test of time. So, if something has "stood the test of time", that makes it, by definition, classic. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. That was a literary allusion. The sonnet is a special type of poem that must follow a strict formula for meter and rhyme scheme. Think of it as a limerick on steroids, or an Elizabethan haiku. It was another example of how a strict formula (like the suits force pop stars into following) doesn't necessarily stifle all creativity or imagination. And when referring to the Bard, it's "Shakespeare's". Shakespears refers to two unrelated sisters who were outstanding British pop stars. "Shakespears Sister" are Siobhan Fahey, formerly of Banarama, and Marcella Detroit. They are pigeonoled as Pop rock, dance-pop, electropop, indie pop, and gothic rock. They were really good, and had hits in the UK and elsewhere. Even within the context of subjectivity, there are still objective things to note and observe. Whether or not one likes waltzes is a matter of opinion. But that a waltz is in 3/4 time is a matter of fact.