So, Mozart: the kind of "Dah dum. Dah dum. Dah dum dah dum dah dum, DAAAH DUM!" ending to movements that we get in everything up-to-and-including the Johnny Appleseed hymn strikes sophisticated modern ears as trite -- trite only because Mozart's influence was so profound that that aspect of his voice became the universal sol- ... uh ... solvent?

Sorry, where was I?

Back to Shakespeare: it used to be thought that Shakespeare invented thousands of words. The evidence? Shakespeare was the earliest recorded use of that word. Morons, your bus is leaving: people bothered to save Shakespeare, that's why that's the record of it. Were it not for the First Folio, we would place those words as showing up after Shakespeare. Modern research -- surprise, surprise -- is showing the words centuries earlier in newly-rediscovered manuscripts. Admire Shakespeare, but don't admire him as a wordsmith.

Similarly -- and here's the comeback to the clichés comment -- they're not entirely wrong. Shakespeare's genius wasn't in original story generation any more than it was in creating words from the æther. Almost everything in his canon is derivative. In Elizabethan times, there would be stories in the culture -- in books of histories, pseudo-histories, apologies, fairy tale -- and playwrights would take one of the topics and write a play about it. His genius -- IMHO -- was transcending the frequent triteness of his topics, transcending the expectations of his audiences, and rendering true art -- on horrific commercial deadlines -- to consumers of entertainment.

Greenblatt, Will in the World, is a good source for more in this vein.

interestingly, you're sounding more and more like a mix between the beloved holden caulfield and the equally beloved mr. chandler.