I haven't installed it yet, because I'm still waiting on some assistance
to
get one of my USB keyboards out of the storage space my studio is in at
the
moment, but I have read the manual end to end.
One thing that struck me was its similarity to older DOS based
sequencers,
in that the approach tends to give you a lot of tools to work with
without a
lot of focus on bells and whistles. There's a very large list of things
it
will do to MIDI, but it leaves a lot of other stuff to other programs.
In the computer programmer world, such a program is called a "gerbil."
The
mental picture is a small gerbil busily running in its wheel, doing what
it's supposed to. Such programs are nice to find, because they handle
things
rather well.
One of the points I like about QWS is that everything is done using a
standard MIDI file. This takes a step or two out of porting the sequence
to
a notation program if you need it, or to a DAW should that be your
intent.
I plan to use QWS for my MIDI work while my studio is deconstructed for
construction of the building, as I still have work I want to get done
right
now, and dragging a seven foot tall rack full of modules and support gear
into the house (with three steps to get inside, too) doesn't seem to make
a
lot of sense to me.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Raymond Grote
Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 4:18 PM
To: QWS list
Subject: Re: QWS List is QWS harder to use than most midi applications?
That's a good point. What I was trying to figure out is why QWS is so
scary
to a sighted person. It's nothing graphical, it just lays itself out in
front of you and you have to do what you need with it. And it doesn't
have
as many functions but that's because it's only for midi, not even sheet
music which I could care less about it. I'm sure there are other programs
for it when I need it that I could use in conjunction with QWS. As I've
said
the only reason I can even think of is that it doesn't have any quick
presets that you can just click or modify like some DAWs do.
In any case, even though QWS's usage is simple, mastering it is not. I've
had many people try QWS and play with it and figure out how easy it was
to
transpose or change to a different instrument, for example. But they know
nothing about midi or theory. So it's even simple enough for them, and
that's a good thing. If they're satisfied with it, then let them be. I
really don't see how much simpler the interface could get.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leonard de Ruijter" <[email protected]>
To: "QWS list" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: QWS List is QWS harder to use than most midi applications?
Hey Raymond,
I have to say that qws seemed quite complicated to me when i started
working with it. Another thing, which is a big credit to Andre, as
soon as i started listening to some of his tutorials, i found qws
getting more and more interesting for me, and understood more of
it. For example, i've played with note transform for several days
after i listened andre's tutorial concerning this. I use qws for every
sequencing work i have to do now, and it works great. Lots of
functions qws has i miss in daws, for example the quick note editing
and midi assignments. So may be it's an idea to point
the daw-lovers to Andre's tutorials. One remark i also have to make
is that some of my sighted friends found qws quite scary as well, but
that's more about how they found it look like, and as it is mainly
used by blind musicians, i don't care.
Hi all,
Here's an interesting question. When I learned QWS, I didn't
have anyone to help me out with it, just the setting up the keyboard
part. And I had to learn most of the tools and functions myself.
While I am a decent musician, I don't consider myself better than
everyone. But QWS just came natural to me, a little more than I had
expected. There are sighted people I know that know way more than I
do, who use other programs which are not at all accessible. They
have a whole workstation in front of them, and they can do way more
than impport midi data and play it back, they can tweak pretty much
every synth and effect peramitor there is. Whether they actually
know the ins and outs of it I don't know, but it sure seems like
they do.
Now the question. I know people who are impressed with the work
I do, contrary to my opinion, lol. but, they wanted to know how I
did it, but they're sort of geared into something like I said above
and I'm not sure exactly how to approach QWs. I initially said,
"The manual's really good, you should understand it." I was under
the impression that QWS's features were pretty familiar to any midi
sequencer that knows what they're doing, and it would be
ridiculously simple. But then an hour later they'd uninstall because
it was either too complicated for them or too slow. I then realized
that QWS and a DAW are pretty different, QWS is like Notepad, where
it doesn't offer amazing functions with one clikc. You have to use
the thirty or so tools that it provides you, in the way you want
them, not go by some factory of presets already made for you and
tweak it from there.
So am I even partially right? Is QWS really complicated from
that standpoint, or could it be lack of patience? We've all seen
what Andre can do with it, I myself found it hard to believe that he
used QWS at first since I'm nowhere near that level.
Maybe some of you here have had similar experiences and can give more
insight.
To unsubscribe or change list options, see http://lists.andrelouis.com
for archived list posts, see
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
To unsubscribe or change list options, see http://lists.andrelouis.com
for archived list posts, see
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
To unsubscribe or change list options, see http://lists.andrelouis.com
for archived list posts, see
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
