Well, with the types of minor in mind, there are lots of note transforms i
could think of:-
- major to minor natural (which is included in qws)
- major to minor harmonic
- major to minor melodic
- minor melodic to minor natural
- minor melodic to minor harmonic
- minor harmonic to minor natural
- minor harmonic to minor melodic
- minor natural to minor harmonic
- minor natural to minor melodic
There is no need for separate minor to major conversions, since the
natural minor to major conversion covers up both melodic and
harmonic as well.
--
Regards,
Leonard de Ruijter
Playing in the dark
Tuesday, August 9, 2011, 11:08:55 AM, you wrote:
> The problem with melodic is, when going up the melody line has a normal
> sixth and seventh found in a major scale, and when going down it is lowered
> to a natural minor scale. I could try making one to see how well it works.
> Another thing I was thinking of, how about a transform for inverting
> melodies, so if you wanted harmony, you could just run the inversion
> transform you needed and have an instant harmony track? I'd have a route to
> first and second inversions for major and minor. Anyone have suggestions for
> transforms? I really am into them now that we brought it up.
> If I send in transforms, how should I send them? Should I attach a file
> containing the data, and call it transforms.ini or something like that, that
> way I'm not overwriting anyone's user transform data? Or should I just paste
> it in a message and hope the line breaks don't interfere?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Leonard de Ruijter" <[email protected]>
> To: "QWS list" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 4:04 AM
> Subject: Re[2]: QWS List is QWS harder to use than most midi applications?
>> Good idea there with the major to minor. I've also thought about
>> creating those, since there are more then one major to minor So if
>> you'd like to share them with us, that would be great.
>> transforms possible, harmonic, melodic and such things.
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Leonard de Ruijter
>> Playing in the dark
>>
>>
>>
>> Monday, August 8, 2011, 9:53:32 PM, you wrote:
>>
>>> I fully agree with you there. Once I loaded in a 15 minute file, and was
>>> looking for different things with the find function. It found something
>>> at
>>> the very end of the file instantly. I've never! had to wait for anything
>>> to
>>> be processed or found in qWS. Even notepad with text files sometimes
>>> makes
>>> you wait, but maybe that's because text files can be bigger than midi if
>>> they're long enough. But the same can be said for midi too. I get the
>>> impression there's no real size limit with QWS, because i've tried to
>>> push
>>> it several times, I've loaded 200 k midis and it didn't complain. The
>>> only
>>> time it did, was when I tried to load in a final fantasy midi and it said
>>> the midi wasn't a valid midi file or something, so I went into Synth Font
>>> and resaved it, and then it opened fine. The sound was unaltered too, in
>>> that there were no changed controllers that i could tell, nothing really
>>> missing.
>>> By the way, I've made a new major to minor transform, it sounds more
>>> natural, instead of changing the major sevenths to minor sevenths, it
>>> keeps
>>> them where they are. So it's more of a harmonic minor scale now but the
>>> minor -sevenths in the original untransformed data are still preserved.
>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Onj" <[email protected]>
>>> To: "QWS list" <[email protected]>
>>> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 3:51 AM
>>> Subject: Re: QWS List is QWS harder to use than most midi applications?
>>
>>
>>>> good morning. I cannot begin to tell you just how much of a proponent I
>>>> am for QWS. I'm probably the second longest user of QWS in the world.
>>>> I
>>>> produced my entire album with it. Recently I went to Birmingham in the
>>>> UK, not Alabama, and tought it to some students in Priestley Smith
>>>> school
>>>> for the blind.
>>>> From the feedback I got at the end, it helped them quite a lot, and we
>>>> produced some videocasts for the school intranet. If or when I get
>>>> permission, I will share those on-list with you all, so you can
>>>> hopefully
>>>> benefit from that also.
>>>> I was only there for one school-day but the students were receptive and
>>>> did really seem to enjoy the demonstrations I put fourth. One of them
>>>> was
>>>> of course, the famous note-transform. I played the very well-known
>>>> nursery rhyme old Mcdonald in F major, and used the major to minor to
>>>> turn
>>>> it into something rather different from the original. Picking something
>>>> that people know quite well for demonstration purposes really hellped to
>>>> get the point accross I feel.
>>>>
>>>> Although other DAWs have such features, how many of them are as easy to
>>>> use or to find as simply visiting the tools menu? How many programs are
>>>> forgoing menus entirely in favour of nasty ribbons or toolbars and
>>>> saying
>>>> bye bye to keyboard shortcuts? too many imho.
>>>>
>>>> the fact that I can run a basic set of synths on a Netbook and take QWS
>>>> with me literally anywhere with access to a qwerty keyboard and write
>>>> down
>>>> ideas is a huge bonus to me. What I think is that a rather large
>>>> section
>>>> of modern computer users have very little pacients and if the product
>>>> has
>>>> no fancy graphics they dismiss it out of hand after 3 minutes of using
>>>> it.
>>>> Truely it is their loss, not ours. We know what we have. We utilise it
>>>> to the best of our abilities and for myself, I'm very glad QWS came into
>>>> being.
>>>> For a free product, very few things come close in the midi world, of
>>>> matching it. Note I said midi, not midi and audio, for we all know QWS
>>>> does not support audio.
>>>>
>>>> Lastly, the size of the program and lack of CPU. Both are practically
>>>> non-existant, even with 32-channel midi files. Responsiveness. Fast
>>>> forward and rewinde in other daws and see what happens.
>>>>
>>>> That's really that for now, but just my thoughts on this Monday morning.
>>>> Thank you for reading.
>>>>
>>>> From: Nicole Massey <[email protected]>
>>>> on Sunday, August 07, 2011 10:52 PM
>>>>
>>>>> 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]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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]
> 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]
