You cant disregard good information cause you think it fucked you up, its information like this that gives you the knowledge of what sounds good in the first place, before actively doing music, as a listener you wouldnt know why something sounds good or not. From what you say you still use the lesson because you say "uncomfortable" but it is just caution in problem areas and you know this before hand, it is wise caution. As you know after learning the ranges then you cant start bending the rules, there would be no ai mastering etc if this information wasnt true and all mixing engineers with successful careers will give this same information. I didnt come up with it.
I wasn't attacking you nor any of the info you gave.
Just the kinda hard and fast "cut here boost here" - how can you advise on a sound that doesn't exist!
In many engineer circles we have discussed this.
Listen to the mixes here - there are some fucking shocking ones. Like, mixes you would actually have to TRY to make them sound so bad. You literally couldn't make as bad a mix if you didn't even touch anything.
Why?
Because people go "oh this is my guitar. You have to boost 3k for presence cut here for mud" "oh on this I have to boost this and boost thay and cut this" "I also have to compress with these settings"
It encourages "you must do this" mentality. It's not about me. It's screwed up many.
Come here someone synth piercing everyone's ears... advice "your synth is too harsh" "I boosted it for presence" ... but it already had presence. Probably should have cut it. But the graphs say boost. So they just boost because "you have to boost for presence.
And it then becomes a case of having to UNLEARN.