Wow, there's quite a lot here. I'll see which ones I could do, probably not all since there are so many! What about exotic or weird scales, or other tasks like the inversion thing I said previously? Anything useful like that I haven't thought of yet?

----- Original Message ----- From: "Leonard de Ruijter" <[email protected]>
To: "QWS list" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 5:26 AM
Subject: Re[4]: QWS List is QWS harder to use than most midi applications?


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]

To unsubscribe or change list options, see http://lists.andrelouis.com

for archived list posts, see http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]

Reply via email to