I think your idea's a good one, but saying it wouldn't take much work is, well, the understatement of the year, since QWS has so many thing you *can* with it, you'd want each one demonstrated I'm sure, and that's not to say that that's an unreasonable expectation. I think if some of our experts in here would each take a piece of the pie, though, then short work could be made of the whole project.
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 09:34:33 -0500, you wrote: >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] To unsubscribe or change list options, see http://lists.andrelouis.com for archived list posts, see http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
