I think our problem is not my logic, but your idea of what constitutes classical music. And your idea seems utterly unfounded as far as I can tell. (What constitutes classical music may have broadened a bit over the centuries, but surely nothing that once applied has been eliminated from it.) It is, indeed, so utterly unfounded that pursuing it further is probably pointless.Your idea of logic is extraordinarily limited. The simple fact is that if I attempted to write like Vivaldi and even got it completely convincing I would not be writing classical music - I would either be making a forgery or producing an unneeded pastiche. You referred earlier to the classical tradition but you cannot find anywhere in that tradition examples of composers forgetting about the preceding 100 years and writing music that a distant forebear might have written. You may not like it but the tradition has been one of change and development. Influences from the past are important but if all a composer can do is copy them then I wonder why he bothers. No, he writes popular music for popular films and that is that. As I said earlier, there is nothing wrong with that but - and this is how we got into this discussion - but please don't pretend it is something that it isn't.
I fear we are taking this thread on a detour ... and to discuss something that has been regularly discussed already on this forum. I know I won't change your taste for that type of music and you probably know that you won't change my suspicion and disdain of it. Is there more to say?