"Real" is not a clear demarcation between good and bad. Good poetry moves you. It doesn't have to be realistic to do so. Indeed, poetry, by its very nature, is unreal. It is forcing language into a beautiful shape, often at the expense of realism. One could easily argue that the examples you present are sappy and overwrought (a common problem in Victorian art and literature.) Realism is straightforward; it isn't ornamented. Or is it?

See, that's the problem with having definitive standards of what is good and bad in art--you can always assail any attempt to set up some kind of universal standard because, whether you try to examine it empirically or logically, there is no such thing, and whenever you try to make such a claim you risk becoming a snobbish and pretentious wanker who looks down on anything you happen not to like. For me there are two factors in determining quality (and these are by no means universal): 1) Does the piece work as a cohesive whole? and 2) Does the artist successfully get across what he or she is trying to get across? Beyond that, I look for originality, or at least a solid effort that isn't completely derivative.

What can I say about the poetry you quoted above? It's nice, but it doesn't move me the way Ritter's songs do. The combination of Ritter's poetic lyrics, his original use of themes and symbolism, and his incorporation of music that fits the themes in the lyrics conspire to push me into an emotional place that most mere poetry is unable to do. I can write poetry too, probably at least as well as anyone at this forum, but I don't do it often. Poetry is a limited medium. Actually, all mediums are limited in some ways, but lyrical songs have an added dimension that poetry doesn't have. It takes every bit as skilled an artist to successfully juggle and balance good lyrics and good music as it does to compose merely poetic words, and I will happily hold up any good lyrical musician living today against past poets and argue with gusto how and why they hold up.

Pure poetry has its uses, certainly, and its niche, but there's a reason why it has not well endured in this form in the hearts of the populace beyond the mid twentieth century. It needed the extra dimension, the extra oomph, that music gave it to stay relevant with all the other forms of media competing for our attention in the modern age. Stand-alone poetry has become anachronistic and has now been given over to daydreamy teen girls and untalented flakes for the most part. Who are the Lord Byrons and John Donnes of the modern age? I say they are folk, pop and rock musicians like Josh Ritter, Maynard Keenan, Tori Amos, Roger Waters, Nick Cave, Poe, Billy Corgan (the song "The Beginning is the End is the Beginning️ ↗" is a dark existential masterpiece that never ceases to give me chills--it's so good it makes you feel evil, and furthermore it makes you like feeling evil), and on and on.