We don't care if you play the first bar of "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star," James (LOL), amazing things can be done with those seven notes.
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 17:03:33 +0100, you wrote: >Hi, > >Regarding quick start tutorials, recall I said I am making some audio >tutorials. One interesting point you raise though is about including >some example MIDI files with them. This is an interesting idea and >somehting I have not done for the first couple of tutorials - I wanted >people to create their own music, not edit mine :) > >However, it may be a useful addition for further tutorials which >concentrate on the editing functions. No promises though as the >tutorials are not aimed at showing how well or poorly I can play! > >Anyway, I'll keep you posted how I get on making the tutorials. > >With best regards, > >James. > > > > > >On 15/08/2011, Nicole Massey <[email protected]> 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] To unsubscribe or change list options, see http://lists.andrelouis.com for archived list posts, see http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
