Never bother with a poem that is less than 100 years old.
If you really want to be 'moved', don't bother with any poem less than 200 years old.
The poems that remain after 300 years are even better... Unfortunately, you start running into problems in that more work is put into deciphering the archaic English than enjoying the ideas expressed.
The point is, 99.9% of modern poetry sucks. It's not you.
I don't believe that that's what's going on here. The majority of all poetry sucks. As does the majority of all music, novels, paintings etc.
But the ones that don't suck persist. That's why it seems that older poetry is better, because we've forgotten/ignored the dross.
This tendency has been exacerbated in some fields by the split between art for marketing purposes and art for commercial purposes. But that hasn't really affected poetry, most of it's poor because most poets aren't very good.
You are exactly right. I left your observation unstated as I felt it obvious.
I was involved in a project to create an anthology of poems. I spent much time reviewing previous anthologies, published in the 1800s, of 'contemporary' poems... that is, the books contained the best poems written during the period the book was published.
And, the verdict? The overwhelming bulk of the poems were terrible.
If you really want to be 'moved', don't bother with any poem less than 200 years old.
The poems that remain after 300 years are even better... Unfortunately, you start running into problems in that more work is put into deciphering the archaic English than enjoying the ideas expressed.
The point is, 99.9% of modern poetry sucks. It's not you.