Recording quality...

mikeydee, I would say that if you're struggling to confine yourself to the last 5 years worth of recordings alone, then you are definitely doing something wrong. I think maybe you have possibly built the wrong kind of system for your tastes in reproduction...not that that would be the first time that's ever happened or anything. But, on the face of it, I'd say that there's something about your gear, or system or setup that is not currently offering you the kind of performance you're craving and that your penchant for blame on the recording quality is actually misplaced. 

It's well known that some systems are more forgiving toward lesser quality recordings than others, that some drivers or speakers are more musical or that some CDP's, or TT's or carts are more forgiving than others. Musicality is a legitimate pursuit in reproduction and shouldn't be given short shrift or anything. Don't fall blindly for the old advice that the best systems are necessarily the ones that magnify the difference between the best recordings and the worst...if that were strictly true, then everyone would be in the same position that you're in - but they're not.

People occasionally make complaints about recording quality, it's true, but I really suspect it is usually a system-dependent playback problem, not so much truly a recording quality problem.

I would say that a good measure of the real success of a system is how much justice it does to the recordings that you most want to listen to - otherwise, your system has you held captive - it is telling You what it is that you want to listen to. 

Not true. The golden era of multi-million facilities and record companies sponsoring artists to spend months coming up with masterpiece (assisted by producers and sound engineers who are often great artists themselves) IS DEAD. 

Telarc folded a few years ago as people don't care for quality anymore.

Very little produced in the last five years sounds good compared to the golden recording era that started in the 60's and ended by the 90's. 
Compare Let it Bleed to the latest Stones release. Compare U2 Joshua Tree to anything they have done since. Compare Adele 19 to the latest Adele crap. Compare foo fighters or Nirvanna early stuff to the latest by Dave Grohl. 9 out of 10 sound worse than they sounded 30 years ago.

I mostly agree with ivan_nosnibor - great post.  Some albums, new and old, that I thought were poorly recorded turned out to be gems once I  majorly tweaked my TT.  As to recording quality, I do find the original all analog albums generally sound better.    There are rereleases that sound better than the (poor) original though so technology does have its place.

Echoing @wlutke I am increasingly finding that as I improve the resolving ability of my system (both analog and digital) I am able to hear more in every recording. There is more musical information available in the vast majority of recordings, of whatever vintage, than most of us are able to access. Whether it's the subtle timing cues of the interplay of different players, or the delicate decay of an instrument into the hall, this sort of information is there even on 80 year old mono recordings, or 20 year old DAT tapes.

I will agree with @shadorne that much of what passes for mass market popular music these days is produced with off the shelf software that sounds terrible -- Adele is a great case in point, what was a natural voice in 19 became electronically processed pablum by 25 -- but lets not blame the producers, they can make great stuff (contrast the terrible sound of 25 with the same producer's work with "The Bird and the Bee") but taste/marketing whatever drives them to make the in your face hot stuff we get.

It's interesting that when it comes to classical recordings it's an opposite story -- almost everything produced these days sounds good, whereas in the 70s and 80s the high point of multi-miked recordings, many were hit or miss

Not to worry though as we have 100 years of material to access and many labels both large and small are still doing great work - so to the OP I'd suggest take the recording you hate the most but performance you love and see how as you improve the resolving ability of your system you can hear more of what the artists intended

I agree most facets of technology that have advanced; however, gold remains gold. I would not want the constraint of only listening to the output of the last 5 years. I have an ultra refined Spectral/MIT/Goldmund system with exceptional AC power/ isolation; and, countless discs/cd's over 5 years old sound fabulous to me. Case in point; with my freshly brewed coffee,sitting on the cozy sheepskin throw in my favorite chair I'm presently enjoying a CD titled "Moments Musicaux"  Musical Moments of Autumn 1999 and Spring 2000 of the Zig Zag Territoires label from Paris(now of Outhere Music in Belgium). The care put into the recording quality shines through and provides as much enjoyment ,to me,as any good disc. I think of musical enjoyment of classical and jazz recordings more like quality classical automobiles or fine art. If you are transported in a 1980 Rolls Royce I don't think you would find any significant increase in comfort in newer cars.When we observe an 'old' masterwork we cannot but see the effects of age if we're up close;but, does this detract from the art? As they say today-- "just sayin". I think with that I'll put a touch of French Brandy when I'm nearly finished my coffee. "Cheers to the Music!"