That’s a cool way of thinking about it, almost like drawing or painting. But the reason you’re thinking that way IME is that you’ve figured out already, subconsciously, that EQ doesn’t really work or do what it says.
Software EQ cant bring out harmonics (properly). It doesn’t Equalize.
What it attempts is harmony by way of an algorithm, but what it does is create dissonance in key spots in the freq-spectrum- that then trick us into listening after the harmonic balance and then our brain puts in the rest of the information. A bit like 3d glasses.
Whereas a hardware EQ could, if you ran something into it, physically alter the tone in real time with a desired harmonic content you had tuned it for.
But a computer cant do that yet. It just doesn’t have the processing power to do this yet live.
It’s the same reason a tiny but seperate circuit in a hardware synth is so infinitely superior in tone to say massive or zebra or whatever amazing soft synth there is out there, still.
(I personally cant understand why this fact isnt as common shared as all the fidelity enthusiast, systems, vinyl and hardware differences people discuss- this is the most important one imo).
But all this technical babble is actually a reason to make computer music in the simplest way - at least with sequencing - fuck around just balancing sounds as they are against each other on the track to track level . Use as much filter you want instead.and learn to balance those with little concern of tonal balance but just focus listening towards a whole/the mix and get the melodies to pop.
I wish i had thrown out EQ ten years ago and not just i dunno 7 years ago