Shouldn't all poetic translations be literal? If the music of the poetry can't be maintained anyways, then why not at least maintain the words? Why am I reading the music of the translator?
There are many poetic works that can't or shouldn't be translated.
What a translator of poetry should do is "remake" the poem in the language he wants it to be translated.
Practically, creating another poem.
Translations can be many things. They can be interpretations which are different on purpose.
They can be literal, which can work, but it can't in all languages. They can be semi-literal, in that they aim for accuracy, but have a slight licence to change things to make them suit the language.
Because not all poetry functions as a form of linguistic art. I agree that poetry which does function like that shouldn't be translated and poetic forms that don't fit the exported language (haiku) are plagues that need to end, but not all poetry is that. Sometimes -- often, in fact -- it's about the meaning, with the music being an aside.
In such situations, the "music" of the poem is a side attraction rather than the main event, and the translator's just adding a regionalised version of it without signifcantly changing anything. Nothing to really complain about, senpai.