abstract visual art vs. abstract audible art

from the Big Question Dept.

This is one that's been floating around in my head for years now. So, big prize for anyone who can answer it. Actually, I remember first thinking of this when in Europe in 1998. jeez that's a long time.

ok, so, Why is it that "abstract" visual art is so much more widely accepted and appealing than abstract audible art?

For ex, circa the 1900's Picasso et all started departing from literal representations of their world ... but it wasn't until 60s/70s (? thinking like John Cage, etc) that music departed from what is naturally beautiful to the human ear, and it has been much less popular.

Or actually, maybe the question is reversed and it is audible art that was always abstract in the sense that it was generated to appeal to human notions of beauty and not reproducing the natural world, while visual art only much later departed from natural world representations and began focussing on pure visual stimulus.

Or is this question just completely malformed?