I am starting to think that attempting to review of poetry is like trying to describe a specific food to a person with no taste buds. If you like the food, say asparagus, you'll describe it in a way that would encourage the tasteless person to think perhaps they'd like it too, when in fact, they might find asparagus disgusting if able to describe it for themselves. It's all so subjective.
I liked parts of this, really liked other parts, and disliked a little. I find it so interesting to go back and read poetry published in the 60s and 70s, because it seems so little of what was new and interesting then would be found so, and published, now, so you're often reading clearly dated work but enjoying the time capsule effect at the same time. Many of the poems are songs as well, or became songs, which I enjoy, and there's a lot of rhyme employed, often to funny and surprising effect. Is this great poetry? This was fun to read, and the pieces I found unapproachable/overly personal for my taste still contained images and lines that were wonderful.
If you write poetry, it's hard (at least it is for me) to comment without viewing it at times through the lens of your own work/how you would have written the same piece (assuming you would have thought to write it at all, which of course you probably wouldn't have). I can see why people enjoy poetry I don't, at least most of the time. I can also see why some people hate, or don't "get", poetry I really like. Since I rely so much on sound when I write, and on attempts at musical phrasing, I usually end up liking poetry written by songwriters, or at least identifying with the work easily. All that to say I liked this!