Modern poetry vs. older poetry?

I was wondering. My teachers call me a rare exception, because I like most older poems, i.e. from centuries 16-19 better than 20th century poetry. I love T.S. Eliot, but that's about it - apart from that, a good old Shelley or Blake can tempt me much more.

What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages of each?

I find myself much more attracted to the older poetry myself. Modern poetry seems too "mucked" with. No one can just sit down and write a nice story via the poetic form like Tennyson's "Lady of Shallot." anymore. Everyone seems to want their poetry to have some deeper meaning. It always seems to have to be about something.

Yes, I realize that most poems are written about something and many do have deeper meanings, but I find that they are more artfully hidden in older works. Perhaps this is because of the language used back when they were written. Perhaps this is because the poets were more skilled in their craft. Perhaps it is because I find a great deal of modern poetry to be written about the poet themself.

Rodent wrote:

Perhaps it is because I find a great deal of modern poetry to be written about the poet themself.

...which is exactly why I think that Walt Whitman should not be classified as a great American poet, simply because he has managed to write a few dozen pages about how freaking great he is.

Personally, I'm a bigger fan of older poetry. Although some of the older poems reflect an actual situation, it can be made universal. My most favorite genre of poetry would probably be epic poetry. I'm a huge fan of the Iliad, the Odyssey, the Aeneid, Beowulf, and Paradise Lost. It's a story being told, but has all of those poetic features.

All in all, I just find modern poetry too specific, if you will.