I have all sorts of test gear. Scopes, analysers and other gizmos and they are very good for giving me a visual representation of all sorts of things, but they are for me the occasional solution for problems my ears cannot sort - so something not quite 'right' can be looked at.
That said - there is no way in the world that any analyser is an everyday tool for the perfect mix. That revolves around the music - the genre, the tempo, the instruments and the feel of the piece you are recording. Your mention of curve is also indicative of a misunderstanding of what the analyser is displaying. As an example - lets say you have 32 bands that are converted to a level on a display. Each band is then shown as a peak or an average or other commutative level - this is not the same as the instantaneous level, and means that if you play loudly a G and an A on a synth, those notes will be added together and a peak created that is NOT there. If you have an analyser that has a much finer solution and sample rate, the G and A will be two separate events, at lower levels. This ignores all the harmonic products, so while an analyser can show you 'holes' in the spectral assignment of the music - this observation needs to be treated with a link to the music being analysed.
The idea that there is some kind of spectral fingerprint that says good or bad is ridiculous. If you take the spectral content of 80s synth pop they are similar - because the content is similar. If you look at the Beatles does their spectral fingerprint differ from the stones? Yep - it does!
Having a mix that won't let the baseline show through can benefit from a look at the spectral distribution and to the skilled observer, reveal what is going on, but it's a fairly blunt tool and every analyser will give different results. I have a few on my phone - they all display the same music differently, because they work differently.
Newcomers need to develop their aural acuity - and learning by reliance on a tool, is a bad move because you are basing mix decisions on what you are seeing, not hearing, and your hearing might well be the correct decision. when you are learning, you need to gain experience and a gadget with uncoordinated results is bad.
For problem solving, they're great but I would NEVER use one for my first mixes. I might use my expensive one for real problems. I might use the one on my phone to check where the main energy is, but my primary tool is my ears. I do not need a LUFS meter while recording and I don't need to constantly check the tuning on the guitars. I don't need to use a display to tell me where that EQ boost is needed, because my ears come close enough.
This bit had me falling over laughing!
Furthermore, for the number of people making music for that 50 years, how many people were successful at it? A relatively small percentage.
I've been in recording studios all my working life - all genres, both sides of the glass and I have done it in TV too, and in my 45 odd years, it's only recently I hear people extolling the virtues of analysers, and until they started being built into the desks, I saw maybe a handful of people use them. why? because they did not need to and frankly - I do not believe you can remotely have a typical curve for music. In the seventies we started the smiley face in people's 7 or 9 band graphic EQs in their hi-fis.
If you want to use an analyser to produce music that's fine, but I'm very wary of using them as an everyday tools in production.