It might be a worthwhile endeavor to create a set of quick start tutorials with associated MIDI files so that someone could, if completely new to sequencers, get a handle on what it can do and how to use it.
This could start with the barest basics -- loading a MIDI file and getting it to play. Then it could work up to the most advanced features of the program. This wouldn't be a hard thing to do, and wouldn't take that much to get it done. The first step is, of course, codifying what the individual tutorials are to get someone to a comfortable level of working with the program. Then it'd be fairly simple to just work through these steps to get a new user up to speed. This approach is common with many other programs -- I've encountered it in both Finale and Sibelius, and I seem to remember it showing up in a couple of DAW programs as well. The best thing about this project is that it'd give the users who benefit so much from the program a chance to give something back so that others could benefit from it. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of James Malone Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 9:25 AM To: QWS list Subject: Re: QWS List is QWS harder to use than most midi applications? Alright, have some thoughts from a relatively new user to QWS. I personally think its the easyest sequencer around, and possibly the most powerful when it comes to manipulating midi controls, and getting them to do what you want them to. I was told once to think of QWS kind of like a word processor, and that is for the most part, a rather PC way of describing it. I started to read the manual, then saw the list of tools. Rather than shuddering and hitting alt F4 as so many people seem to do, I kept on at it and played with them. After a couple days, I managed to get a grasp on what they all seem to do, and how they would work in conjunction with other features. Eventually the new user will come to realise that their aren't as many tools at it might seem at first glance, or one tool has an extensive list of things you can do. For example, progression. I also spoke to a couple of long-time users of it, and took advantage of its context sensitive help in addition to the manual. Would I be right in saying that even those who have used QwS since early days still pick up on better ways of doing things, or find a different way of doing something? One thing I've always said about music in general, is that you can never stop learning. Yes you might have your Beethoven's and all that, but they were never completely perfect (disregarding the current events around that time.) In short, anything you do will be a life long lesson. Anyway, just my thoughts on the matter. Cheers, James On 8/15/11, Steve Matzura <[email protected]> wrote: > Things like creating an echo effect are the same all over, whether > you're talking about QWS or Logic. An echo is just playing the same > note a couple of ticks or beats downh from the original, and usually a > little softer. Regardless what sequencer you're using, you just copy > the notes you want echoed, paste them to another track moved down the > appropriate number of beats or ticks, adjust the MIDI velocity or > volume, and you're done. QWS has no particular importance in this > process that any other sequencer does not have. > > On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 21:02:50 +0200, you wrote: > >>I agree with Damien, but i noticed that QWS is complicated for people >>who are beginners in midi and who have a little knowledge about it. I >>know about five persons from Slovakia and Czech republic who are using >>QWS and they are still asking things. Mostly about ports, copypasting >>multyple tracks, ETC. The problem is, that people (and i too) don't >>thing about things a few seconds. For example how to create a echo - >>another track, time glide... >>I really want to say thanks to Andrew, who helps me with things arround >>QWS. I am not a perfect-quantized man who know all aspects, but i am >>using it for a year and it is the best solution for me, sometimes >>combined with Lylipond. >> >> >> >>D?a 7. 8. 2011 22:24, Damien C. Pendleton wrote / napísal(a): >>> Hi Raymond, >>> In my opinion, QWS is certainly the best sequencer I have come across in >>> my time. I needed absolutely no help in using it, and in actual fact my >>> previous school over in Worcester have now started using QWS in their >>> music department. It was actually a member of the computer staff, Peter >>> Bryenton, that introduced me to QWS, and I have never, ever gone off it, >>> in the eight or so years I have been using it. >>> From a tools viewpoint, I think it has a lot more tools than Notepad >>> could ever give, and though it doesn't give most of the hardcore audio >>> productionist elements like Cubase or Cakewalk, it is certainly enough >>> to be able to record pure MIDI both quickly and efficiently. >>> Put it this way, even recording a full ten plus track song using the >>> on-screen keyboard is quicker than it took me to set up and record a >>> single drum track in Cubase. That was my primary method of recording >>> MIDIs until I got my keyboard fairly recently. >>> Hope that helps. >>> Regards, >>> Damien. >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* Raymond Grote <mailto:[email protected]> >>> *To:* QWS list <mailto:[email protected]> >>> *Sent:* Sunday, August 07, 2011 8:56 PM >>> *Subject:* QWS List is QWS harder to use than most midi applications? >>> >>> 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]
