r/e "I can't draw for shit": I've spoken about this before, but I think visual art is harder to make something you're OK with because (most of the time) it's more objectively representational.
We all know what a forest "is" visually - trees, plants, some animals maybe, etc. Each forest is unique, but they have these elements in common. And we can recognize these elements, even if they're rendered in different styles or levels of detail, or presented in a different mood or framing, etc etc.
It's more subjective what a forest "is" in terms of audio (outside of, idk, birdcalls?), so it's harder to look at a forest song in progress and say "this is clearly not capturing the feeling". Music is abstract art, after all. So you have more freedom to lean into your strengths and ignore your weaknesses as a composer.
But if I can't draw something that I think sufficiently represents a tree's rough bark, or its crooked branches, or the way light pierces its leaves, then it's harder to feel like you're making a quality result. You need better fundamentals and a clearer direction to get to somewhere relevant.
I can just kind of "make a song" and then worry about how it fits the bitpack separately. But a lot of the time it's not really possible to just "make an art" without addressing the bitpack directly. Visuals require you to "check boxes" in a way that music usually doesn't.
Basically getting to the "bare minimum" in visual art seems like it asks more from you, because the artist's (and the audience's) standards for representational art are narrower.
Maybe the secret is an abstract art OHB series?