Why NEXUS Think Producers Should Arrange Earlier

I think one of the easiest mistakes to make when producing electronic music is assuming that a track needs another element simply because something doesn’t feel quite right. You can spend hours auditioning synthesizers, adding percussion, adjusting effects, and experimenting with different arrangements, only to discover that the original idea was actually working better before you started changing everything. I’ve certainly been guilty of this myself, and I think it’s particularly frustrating when every individual adjustment sounds like an improvement but the complete record somehow becomes less interesting.

Knowing when to stop adding things, and having the confidence to remove something you’ve spent hours working on, requires a different kind of judgment than simply knowing how to operate your equipment.

That’s a subject Zurich- and Ibiza-based trio NEXUS have spent considerable time thinking about, particularly as they’ve developed their approach to melodic and organic house through production, DJing, and running their own record label. Founded by Lucian, Lucas, and Max, NEXUS have performed internationally at events including Burning Man, Montreux Jazz Festival, Art Basel Miami, and Hive Club in Zurich, while also developing their SENS event series and independent imprint Percue Records. Their latest release, Automatic, arrived September 18, 2026, as the label’s eighth release, bringing vocalist Julia Beverly into an original production built around melodic synthesizers and a gradually developing arrangement.

An accompanying Club Mix revisits the same material from a darker, more rhythm-focused direction, offering a good example of how different production decisions can change the character of a composition without requiring an entirely new musical idea.

What interested me about this conversation was how NEXUS approach those decisions as three producers who don’t necessarily agree on what a track needs at any given moment.

They discuss why removing elements can improve a production, how having access to countless sounds can become an excuse to avoid committing to an idea, and why testing unfinished music during DJ sets can provide answers that aren’t immediately apparent in the studio. There are also some particularly interesting examples from their own catalog, including “Omnithrough,” which went through years of revisions before they returned to an earlier version, and “Don’t You,” which benefited from having a specific performance deadline.

I think their experiences raise an important question for producers who spend a lot of time revising music: are you actually making the track better, or are you simply making it different?

Interview With NEXUS

During revision and editing on a track to get it as perfect as it could be, how do you know a track needs subtraction instead of another layer?

For us, the clearest sign is when a track starts sounding busy but somehow loses its emotional impact. Our music is built around progression, tension, and release, so every element needs to contribute to that journey. Sometimes a breakdown feels like it needs more energy, but adding another synth or percussion layer only makes things worse. That’s usually when we start removing elements to see what really matters. A melody can become much more powerful when you give it room to breathe, and a drop can hit harder because of what you take away beforehand. Coming from both production and DJing, we also think about how a track unfolds on the dance floor. Our sound combines organic percussion, melodic textures, and progressive elements, but what matters most is how they work together over time.

We want the music to build naturally, creating anticipation without revealing everything at once. Working as three producers with different musical backgrounds also helps because we challenge each other’s decisions and don’t always get attached to the same details. One of us might focus more on the groove, another on the melody or overall arrangement, which gives us different perspectives on what a track actually needs.

Beyond the three of us, we’re fortunate to have a close network of friends and fellow artists whose opinions we trust. Whenever we need a fresh perspective, we can turn to them for honest feedback. That sense of community and creative exchange is an important part of how we work, and sometimes an outside perspective helps us hear something we’ve overlooked after spending too much time on a track. Ultimately, we’re not trying to make every second sound impressive. We want the entire track to tell a compelling story.

With endless sounds and plugins available, how can producers avoid crowding the track?

We think it starts with having a clear vision of what the track should communicate. It’s incredibly easy to get distracted by a beautiful synth, an interesting texture, or a new plugin, but just because something sounds good doesn’t mean it belongs in the track. We try to give each element a specific purpose. The groove creates movement, the melodies carry emotion, and the atmospheric elements add depth without competing for attention. We also pay close attention to frequencies, dynamics, and how sounds interact rather than evaluating them individually. A sound might be beautiful on its own but lose its purpose once everything else is playing alongside it. That’s why we regularly step back and listen to the entire arrangement rather than getting lost in individual channels or details. Our approach combines organic percussion with melodic and progressive elements, so finding the right balance is essential. We also believe that contrast plays an important role in creating energy. If everything is constantly competing for attention, nothing really stands out. Giving certain elements space allows others to take the lead, creating a natural sense of movement and anticipation throughout the track. Sometimes a subtle change in arrangement or automation creates more movement than adding another instrument. Especially in electronic music, where the possibilities are practically endless, knowing what to leave out is just as important as knowing what to put in.

At what point does searching for options turn into avoiding the harder decision?

When you’re no longer searching for something specific but simply hoping the next option will magically make everything better. There’s a big difference between creative exploration and endlessly scrolling through presets because you’re afraid to commit. We love experimenting in the studio, especially during the early stages when we’re jamming on melodies, harmonies, and grooves. That’s often where unexpected ideas emerge. But once the direction becomes clear, we believe it’s important to make decisions and move forward. Working as a trio brings different perspectives, which is a huge creative advantage, but it also means we need to find common ground. Sometimes we have three different opinions about a sound or arrangement, and the challenge is choosing what serves the track rather than defending individual preferences. One thing that’s worked particularly well for us is testing different versions of a track during our DJ sets and observing how the crowd responds. We did this with our latest release, Automatic, and the feedback from the dance floor helped us make some of those harder creative decisions. It’s a great way to get out of your own head and experience the music from a different perspective. At some point, you have to trust your instincts. Creativity needs freedom, but finishing music requires commitment.

Where do producers usually lose the original idea during revision?

We think it often happens when producers become so focused on perfecting individual elements that they stop listening to the track as a whole.

Most of our ideas start with a particular feeling, whether that’s a melody, a groove, or an atmosphere that immediately sparks something. During production, it’s easy to get caught up in refining sounds, improving the mix, or making the arrangement more complex until that initial feeling slowly disappears. What makes this particularly tricky is that each individual change might sound like an improvement, but the accumulation of those decisions can gradually shift the track away from what made it special in the first place. We experienced this with our track Omnithrough, which evolved over several years and went through numerous iterations before reaching its final form. As we explored different arrangements, sounds, and directions, the track developed its own identity, but we eventually found ourselves revisiting some of the earlier ideas.

Listening back to one of those versions with fresh ears, we realized it had something special that we had gradually moved away from. Rather than abandoning either direction, we decided to refine and update that original idea, ultimately releasing two interpretations of the same track: the Sun Version and the Moon Version. Both share the same roots but express different sides of the original vision, which made the decision to release them together feel natural. It was a great reminder that creative evolution doesn’t always mean replacing what came before. Sometimes an earlier idea deserves its own space, and taking a little distance can help you recognize its value again. Ultimately, the challenge is improving a production without losing the instinct and emotion that made it exciting in the first place.

What would you tell artists who start tracks easily and struggle to finish them?

First, we’d say that finishing music is a separate skill from creating ideas, and it’s something you develop through practice. It’s easy to spend hours perfecting a loop, but a great loop doesn’t automatically become a great track. Our advice would be to move into arranging earlier, even if the sounds aren’t perfect yet.

Once you have a solid groove and a melodic direction, build a rough structure from beginning to end. That forces you to think about progression, transitions, tension, and release rather than getting stuck on individual details. It also helps to step away occasionally and return with fresh ears. We’re fortunate to work as a trio because we can push each other forward when someone gets stuck, and having three different perspectives creates a natural quality filter. Another valuable exercise is testing unfinished music in a DJ set when possible.

Hearing a track in the context of other records and watching how a crowd responds can reveal things you would never notice in the studio. Sometimes setting a firm deadline also makes all the difference. Our track Don’t You is a good example. We originally produced it specifically for an Easter party in Zurich, so we had a clear date to work towards. That gave us the push to turn the initial idea into a complete track rather than getting caught up in endless revisions. We continued refining it afterwards, and it eventually evolved into a more intimate, melodic house record with a warm groove and an emotional vocal at its heart. Having that initial deadline helped us establish a solid foundation while leaving room for the track to evolve naturally. Ultimately, deadlines force you to commit to decisions and break out of an endless cycle of iterations, where each new version isn’t necessarily better than the last. Most importantly, don’t let perfectionism prevent you from releasing music.

Every finished track teaches you something that an unfinished project never will.

Listen to NEXUS feat. Julia Beverly, Automatic EP, on Beatport

Final Thoughts From The Editor

The thing I found most interesting about NEXUS’s answers was their explanation of what happened while making “Omnithrough,” particularly because they spent years developing the record before realizing that an earlier version contained something they wanted to return to.

I think a lot of producers can relate to that experience, especially when you spend enough time on a project that you stop evaluating whether the original idea still works and start focusing almost entirely on whatever you’re trying to improve. I’ve certainly opened old sessions and discovered that a rough arrangement from several months earlier communicated the idea more effectively than the considerably more polished version sitting in my current project folder.

That’s worth considering, because the time you’ve spent on a particular decision doesn’t necessarily determine whether it deserves a place in the finished track.

It’s a subject I’ve discussed before in my guide to knowing when a track is finished, where I examined how additional revisions can gradually remove the qualities that made an original idea interesting. The problem is that each change can seem reasonable as you make it, especially if you’re fixing a technical issue, improving a transition, or trying to add more movement to an arrangement. But when you compare the finished result with the original demo, you sometimes discover that those individual improvements haven’t necessarily produced a better record. What I like about the NEXUS example is that they didn’t simply abandon the newer version once they rediscovered the original.

They recognized that the two arrangements had developed different characteristics and ultimately released the Sun Version and Moon Version together, allowing each interpretation to retain its own musical direction.

Their comments about testing unfinished music during DJ sets are also worth considering, particularly because producers sometimes make assumptions about how a recording will function outside the studio. I’ve spoken with quite a few artists about this, including Fejká in our conversation about simplicity and perfectionism, where he explained how playing music live can change his understanding of which parts of a composition deserve attention. Fejká specifically discussed reducing atmospheric elements during performances and concentrating on the drums, bass, and main leads, partly because certain details don’t translate as effectively through large sound systems. NEXUS is considering a related issue when they test different arrangements during DJ sets, using the audience’s response to understand how the music develops over time. I think that kind of testing can be particularly informative for melodic and progressive house, where relatively small changes to arrangement and timing can affect how a track functions during a longer DJ set.

There’s also an important point in their recommendation to begin arranging earlier instead of spending too much time improving a short loop. I think producers sometimes become attached to the idea that every sound needs to be properly developed before they can begin thinking about the complete composition, which can make it difficult to recognize whether the musical idea has enough material to support a finished track. In my interview with LARSa about why the song matters more than individual parts, we discussed the importance of finishing arrangements, allowing yourself some distance from a project, and recognizing when an otherwise interesting element doesn’t belong in the final recording. NEXUS make a similar recommendation, suggesting that producers build an initial arrangement from beginning to end before becoming too concerned with perfecting every sound. I agree with that approach because it gives you something complete to evaluate, and the problems you discover while arranging can help determine where additional production work is actually necessary.

I think the larger lesson from this conversation is that finishing music requires producers to become comfortable making decisions they might later reconsider. You can spend as much time as you want experimenting with different sounds, trying alternative arrangements, and seeking opinions from other artists, but eventually you need to decide what the recording should communicate and which elements help accomplish that. NEXUS’s experience with “Omnithrough,” “Automatic,” and “Don’t You” provides three examples of how that process can develop, whether through returning to an earlier arrangement, testing music in front of an audience, or working toward a specific performance date.

For producers who struggle to finish records, I think that’s a reasonable place to concentrate their attention. Learning another production technique can certainly improve your music, but developing the judgment to recognize which decisions are worth keeping is what helps you apply those skills to a finished release.