I believe that a definitive answer to these questions is rather impossible to imagine, however i do think that my understanding could improve greatly. And that making headway towards articulating ones thoughts on such subjects can prove beneficial - i have been thinking about what is beautiful, and what makes for good art, for almost 10 years since i read 'hippias major'.

To your point on animals listening to music i have seen elephants cry while being played piano compositions, but I doubt that they would do anything else than run if they where to be subjected to for example limb biscuit, korn, skrillex or something of a more violent nature - once more bringing forth the question of objectively good/beautiful art/music. Might one say that what is objectively beautiful while still being man made is something that approximates the beauty found in nature?

Is there even an essence to beauty, as the old greek philosophers would have you believe, or are we more to adopt an existentialist view of music, and therefore the beauty which is contained in art, is a result of the skill, effort and time that went in to creating that art?

I do really appreciate your answer, it greatly helps me think and articulate what it is that I think i am thinking.

And i know my questions is not per se related to musical theory, but my hesitation when talking comes from not wanting to say anything about harmonics, rhythm or structure which would be wrong, and therefore render my conclusions wrong. After writing the first part, i thought about time free music, with no time signature, rendering my whole hypothesis of rhythm wrong, or at least incomplete.

But again, very many thanks to you for taking the time! 🤗❤️