Fair enough, I suppose, Andrew, though I would invite you to reconsider the phrase, "overly classical stance." Many of the great works we now consider "classics" were works of remarkable innovation, often pushing hard against established or traditional norms, or synthesizing competing traditions in new and inventive ways. Earlier in the thread you wrote:

This is, to me, demonstrably incorrect, unless by "obvious" you mean something amorphous enough to make the statement a tautology. Assuming you did not, I'd argue that forms absolutely evolve, and they often, perhaps mostly, do so as a result of practitioners pushing at boundaries and even re-drawing them (which does not necessarily mean demolishing them). Every received poetic form was a nonce form at some point in its history.

In my mind, a "classical" stance, would have much less to do with some sort of aesthetic conservatism or traditionalism than it would have to do with vibrant innovation and renovation.

David R.

David, I thank you for your opening remark, qualified though it is, to my intended olive branch extending post. As for the rest, we can agree, I trust, to respectfully disagree on a couple of points regarding original forms and their evolution, and the degree to which modification may be proper, if the name of the form is still to be employed.