Indeed we do. I was also thinking of say, Dorien? Of course one would
hardly ever use it, but it would be there for a bit of a laugh. Will
even make it myself when I get round to learning how to do so. Dunno
why, but something about that scale fasinates me. Lol :)

On 8/9/11, Raymond Grote <[email protected]> wrote:
> Funny you mention that, about a half hour ago I thought of doing that myself
> lol! Musicians think alike I guess.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Onj" <[email protected]>
> To: "QWS list" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 7:10 AM
> Subject: Re: Re[2]: QWS List is QWS harder to use than most midi
> applications?
>
>
>> Hi.  My suggestion for submission is send in a txt and say at the top of
>> the document, disable wordwrap.
>> Then paste each transform you want into the userxfrm.ini file and hope it
>> works.
>> That should work, as the list does support attachments, just not very big
>> ones for obvious reasons.
>> Cheers.
>>
>> From: Raymond Grote <[email protected]>
>> on Tuesday, August 09, 2011 10:08 AM
>>
>>> 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]
>
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