Skip to main content
Topic: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams (Read 49045 times) previous topic - next topic

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #1
It'd be interesting to know which moron did the review...

Apparently NWC:
  • Is the hardest to use.
  • Has cross staff beaming
  • Has a metronome (I know we can MAKE one...)
  • Doesn't have a time display
  • Doesn't have "Computer Keyboard Note Input" - Hello!?!  What have I been using all these years???  It certainly wasn't the mouse!
  • Doesn't have a paper manual - Well I got one, not that I ever used it...
  • There are no download Patches
  • There are no download Updates
  • Doesn't support Vista
  • Doesn't support NT

Now, a couple of quotes from the reviewers comments:

This program is more difficult to use than the other programs we reviewed. You can enter notes using the mouse or click on the appropriate line and hit the enter key.

The software doesn't automatically place the measure bars so you can enter an infinite number of notes on one measure, whereas other programs prevent you from entering notes that exceed the measure's time.


Never heard of an arrow key?  And being able to manage barlines/measure size is a great feature, not a fault


This program is solely for the purpose of notation. It doesn't import WAV files to make a complete score or have the ability to do drum notation or guitar tablature notation.

I'd love to be able to import .wav's and make notation out of 'em - what can I buy that WILL?  As for correct drum and Guitar tab without work arounds - those would be nice.


There is no mixer available during playback, which made it impossible to adjust the volume while playing.

Umm, what happened to your speaker icon in the system tray - this is not really necessary and doesn't reflect the quality of the product.


The step-time is simple to use, however, we could not activate the real-time entry feature.

I guess this one isn't soooo bad, I mean, who could expect anyone to read the FAQ's?


For this price, we would have expected more editing options like a mixer, a piano roll editor and punch recording.

The software offers keyboard shortcuts and symbol palettes to access the editing features


It's 39 bucks for cryin' out loud - Now, I may be naive but how does a mixer help with notation editing?  Or a piano roll editor...  For MIDI yes, but we're primarily looking at notation...  And WHAT is "punch recording"?


And now the CLASSIC:

We found Noteworthy Composer a difficult program to use with a confusing staff set up and inaccurate note placement. For half the cost, you can purchase the Silver or Bronze award winning products.

Umm, NWC is $39.00, the Gold winner is $179.95 and the Silver is $99.95.  Hardly half the cost of NWC!  And it's not NWC's fault the reviewer can't use either his computer keyboard OR his mouse.  Nor is it NWC's fault he can't READ.


Hmm, I must be in a testy mood at the moment...

Edit:  Looks like I don't read too well either...  The BRONZE winner is $399.99 - 10 times the price of NWC, NOT half...  I read silver and bronze, but quoted the prices of gold and silver - sorry folks.
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals, youfonymums 'n tubies.

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #2
I've been using NWC for more than ten years and didn't realise there are all this cheap software out there which is, apparently, so much easier to use.
Nevertheless, I'm quite happy in my ignorance and have no intention to change (or downgrade).

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #3
The specs given are so misleading. 8 lyrics is actually 8 lyrics per stave. I could do 99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall in NWC without it even breaking a sweat.

Also, < $39 = freeware as anything less is not worth collecting.

I'm just dying to try the wav input on The Firebird Suite. I wonder, if I try Carmina Burana, will I get the lyrics too? Always wanted to know what they were.
Registered user since 1996

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #4
I don't mean to sound like sour grapes but am I to deduce that Home Studio,
Q Bass ,Logic and Sebelius are either not even considerd or they are above
review.

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #5
Well... I just sent TopTenREVIEWS a polite complaint letter regarding the fallacies in their review.  We'll see if they respond.

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #6
The specs given are so misleading. 8 lyrics is actually 8 lyrics per stave. I could do 99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall in NWC without it even breaking a sweat.
How do you do that? I have a guess...is it by using multiple staves?  If so, you'd run into the playback problem of displaying highlights on the words on the correct verse and only correct verse's lyrics.
Quote
I'm just dying to try the wav input on The Firebird Suite. I wonder, if I try Carmina Burana, will I get the lyrics too? Always wanted to know what they were.
I've always been overly critical of wave input into a notation processor, and I've never seen one that even comes remotely close to even picking up a note for every beat, let alone anything that sounds like the song.

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #7
I've always been overly critical of wave input into a notation processor, and I've never seen one that even comes remotely close to even picking up a note for every beat, let alone anything that sounds like the song.

How do you un-scramble an egg?  Same problem.
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals, youfonymums 'n tubies.

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #8
Here's their summary of NWC:
Summary:
We found Noteworthy Composer a difficult program to use with a confusing staff set up and inaccurate note placement. For half the cost, you can purchase the Silver or Bronze award winning products.

When I followed the  links for Silver and Bronze, they went to programs costing $99.00 and $399.00 respectively. Sounds like  a marketing motive lurks behind the scenes. As was reported, there are a number of software products such as Cakewalk and Finale among others, which are not even mentioned. Also not mentioned is this community which is invaluable to the user in problem solving and workarounds. 

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #9
... you'd run into the playback problem of displaying highlights on the words on the correct verse and only correct verse's lyrics ...
True. As usual, I was focused on printing.
Registered user since 1996


Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #11
As far as an end user product is concerned I am proud to say that if you are to lazy
or due to some other mental or physical drawback which impededs the ability to
write or read standard notation ,then Noteworthy is a spesialist program ,and
would be difficult to use, from that point of view.Some things in life you just have to learn the computer can't do everything.

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #12
As was reported, there are a number of software products such as Cakewalk and Finale among others, which are not even mentioned.

Ugh! Don't even mention Finale Notepad while I'm around!  Cakewalk isn't too bad for midi importing.  It actually does a very decent job with it, including jazz notation, triplets, and getting the notes to fall on the actual beat.  I can't say the same about Noteworthy.

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #13
Which mail-address? I would like to send something myself.
I must admit I used Lawrie's complaints as a guideline for choosing which aspects to counter, so sorry if this sounds copy-cat-ish.
I emailed their General Questions etc. address at info@toptenreviews.com :
Quote
To those responsible for evaluating Noteworthy Composer 1.75b in the Music Notation Software 2007 Review:


Here at the Noteworthy Software Community, we heard about your Music Notation Software Review 2007. In inspecting the stats, we found that Noteworthy Composer had a faulty evaluation.

The primary problems we noticed were as follows:


  • Is hard to use-- While I haven't tried the other notation softwares presented in the survey, I was able to learn how to use Noteworthy within a few minutes. I certainly found it much easier to use than any other notation processor I've seen.  Difficulty is relative, though, so I won't go further here.
  • Has cross staff beaming-- There's no such feature in this program.
  • Has a metronome-- See the above, no such feature.
  • Doesn't have a time display-- Yes it does. It's in the right end of the status bar at the bottom. It shows both the elapsed time and the total time.
  • Doesn't have "Computer Keyboard Note Input"-- Keyboard input is the primary input method. [Enter/Return] = note; [Spacebar] = rest; [arrow keys] = navigate the staff for foolproof accurate note placement(up, down, forward, backward); [Tab] = bar line; [CTRL] = insert a chord member. Also, most mouse-accessible commands are available through easy-to-use keyboard shortcuts.
  • Doesn't have a paper manual-- Yes it does, although it's seldom used.
  • There are no download Patches-- Yes there are. Go to noteworthysoftware.com
  • There are no download Updates-- Same answer here as above.
  • Doesn't support Vista-- Even though it was developed in early versions of Windows, it is supported in ALL versions of Windows, including Vista, running error-free.
  • Doesn't support NT-- Again, it is supported and runs error-free.
  • The software doesn't automatically place the measure bars so you can enter an infinite number of notes on one measure, whereas other programs prevent you from entering notes that exceed the measure's time.-- One of the things we love the most about this notation processor is just about anything in it can be overridden to meet your composing needs. It's important to allow for too many notes in a measure, especially since the software is used to enter classical compositions, many of which contain "too many" beats in some measures. Corelli is a great example of a composer who did this on purpose. For those who REALLY want their bars forced, there's a button that allows you to force bar lines.
  • We found Noteworthy Composer a difficult program to use with a confusing staff set up and inaccurate note placement. For half the cost, you can purchase the Silver or Bronze award winning products.-- Totally wrong. Noteworthy is $39. The silver is $99.95, and the bronze is $399.99. The Noteworthy software is not high-priced at all for what it is capable of. Also, note placement is VERY accurate. You're supposed to use the up and down keys to position your note, not your cursor, which gives you perfect and fast placement EVERY TIME. I don't know anyone who uses the mouse to position their notes. In fact, the ability to use the keyboard for note placement is one of the primary reasons I prefer it over similar notation processors!
All of the the above responses refer to version 1.75b, and the answers are the same regarding the upcoming version 2.



I hope that in the future you are more careful about errors in your reviews.  This could cause Noteworthy Software or any other affected company a loss in popularity and profit.

 

Thank you for your time,

(my name)

A satisfied Noteworthy Composer user and beta tester

[/list]

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #14
My submission to info@toptenreviews.com:


Your reviewer is entitled to his opinion about any software, but I am concerned that he obviously mixed up his review of Noteworthy Composer with some other notation processor.  There are too many factual errors in the review to be anything other than that.  I refuse to believe that your reviewer would deliberately set out to mislead potential buyers. 

At the price, US$39 or so, you can and should expect limitations, but the program has a number of features to allow workarounds, allowing fairly sophisticated scores and parts to be written.  I've done about 50 big band charts with it. 

Please have your reviewer retest NWC.  I don't care whether he ranks it at the top or bottom of the list, a reviewer is entitled to be subjective, but the outright errors need to be fixed

I have no financial interest in Noteworthy, but have been a very satisfied user for 11 years, and I use the program extensively for notation of fairly sophisticated music. 

David Palmquist
Delta, B.C., Canada


Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #15
Thanks for your trouble David.

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #16
It is an appalling presentation of "facts."  Just shows how unreliable the internet is as a source of information.

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #17
Also to be considered is the wealth of NWC transcribed music on the web which is immediately available.
Since 1998

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #18
Very nicely put...I wasn't sure how to word it, really, so I didn't do a lot of wording...just representing what was incorrect.

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #19
This here's my missive - I wasn't quite as polite as David, and I "borrowed" some of Bob's format and commentary...

Quote
To those involved in the evaluation of products in the music notation software review.  In particular I reference the Noteworthy Composer 1.75b comments:

I heard about your review in the Noteworthy Software Forum and, being rather curious, I thought I'd take a look.  Unfortunaltely I was dismayed to discover what I consider many potentialy misleading and possibly damaging (to NWC) errors.

In particular::

  • Is hard to use: I have "audtioned" all the notation products I could get my hands on.  There is no doubt, in my mind, that NWC is the easiest to use.  Your reviewer complained about inaccurate note placement - has he never heard about arrow keys?  The mouse is the first thing you stop using when inputting notation - most people are simply not dextrous enough to use a mouse accurately in any  application.  Notation is no exception.  Keyboard input is, in my view, at least 10 times faster than using a mouse - and I have well over 20 years experience in using a mouse...  I'm pretty good at it.
    It doesn't force barlines: This is a FEATURE not a shortcoming.  Free form notation input makes composing at the computer keyboard sooo much easier.  Editing note/rest duration or adding and subtracting notes and rests is a simple matter that does not impact anything or cause constant recalculation of barline position.  When you're done, there is an automatic barline tool that is just 2 keystrokes (or mouse click, if you must) away.
  • Has cross staff beaming:  Umm, no, it doesn't - this is a shortcoming we must "work around" - It isn't hard but is mildly irritating.
  • Has a metronome: No again, though it isn't hard to build a click track and set the correct tempo.
  • Doesn't have a time display:  Unless you are speaking of a simple clock, then wrong again - It's in the right end of the status bar at the bottom and shows both elapsed time and total time.
  • Doesn't have "Computer Keyboard Note Input":  Please refer to my first point.  In fact, keyboard entry is the primary input method - <Enter> = note; <Spacebar> = rest; <arrow keys> = move the insertion point for perfectly accurate note placement (up, down, forward, backward); <Tab> or <*> = bar line; <CTRL+Enter> = insert a chord member; <1> through <5> = set duration; <;> = activate slur; </> = activate tie and far too many more to mention.  Almost all most mouse-accessible commands are available through easy-to-use keyboard shortcuts.
  • Doesn't have a paper manual:  Well I got one when I purchased my copy - though I don't think I ever needed to open it, the product is so easy and intuitive to use.
  • There are no download Patches/Updates:  Online updates are available from the help menu...
  • Doesn't support Vista or NT:  Actually, yes it does.  The 32 bit version of NWC functions on ALL versions of windows from 95 on.  The 16 bit version which I think still ships on the CD will run in Windows 3.1...  More to the point, I have never seen it crash.  I am an NWC2 beta tester and I have only seen an older beta crash once - I consider this very impressive.
  • The software doesn't automatically place the measure bars so you can enter an infinite number of notes on one measure, whereas other programs prevent you from entering notes that exceed the measure's time:  I mentioned this in my first point, but I will reiterate it as this is possibly the most short sighted comment in the review.  The free form capabilities of this product make it so flexible that other, more rigidly confining, products become unbearable to use.  Remember, I have tested a large, but uncounted, number of other products.  Including those considered the market leaders and they just don't stack up for ease of use and flexibility.  E.G.  Just try adding a new staff in most products - it can be near impossible, in NWC it's a single mouse click OR a control key stroke away - all same deleting a staff.  Editing any element on the staff is a simple matter of highlighting it and pressing <Ctrl+E> or <Alt+Enter>.  Almost anything can be overridden to meet your needs, and to get to the point. it's important to allow for too many OR too few notes in a measure.  Consider the needs of older musical forms that have no barlines, or experimenting with rhythmic patterns that may end up requiring changing for some bars (measures) time signatures; simple free form note input while you figure out what you're hearing in your head WITHOUT the distraction of the notation software bleeping and complaining about note values or breaking crotchets into tied, smaller notes that won't be restored once the bar is finally figured out.
  • This program is solely for the purpose of notation.  It doesn't support WAV files to make a complete score or have the ability to do drum notation or guitar tablature notation:  Well Hello!  The review is about notation software!  The inability to import WAV files for "a complete score" is about as inane a comment as I have ever heard - how do you un-scramble an egg?  A product that can create accurate notation from a WAV file is a very long time into the future - if one EVER eventuates.  Drum notation and guitar tab without the work arounds we currently use would be most welcome.
  • There is no mixer available during playback:  Umm, we're creating notation here, not sequencing a MIDI.  The fact that MIDI's can be produced is a bonus, not a primary function (IMHO)
  • We found Noteworthy Composer a difficult program to use with a confusing staff set up and inaccurate note placement. For half the cost, you can purchase the Silver or Bronze award winning products:  Umm, WRONG again - Noteworthy Composer is $39. The silver winner is $99.95, and the bronze winner is $399.99.  Hardly HALF the price...  I've already commented on what I think about the product's ease of use...  And at $39 Noteworthy Composer simply HAS to be the very best value available in notation software.


All of the the above refers to version 1.75b (and 1.75c, the current downloadable update).  The beta NWC2 has the same, and more features.

While I appreciate these kinds of review, it makes it extremely difficult to accept the results when the review of a product I am familiar with is filled with so many errors.  If this products' review is so inaccurate, how poor are the others?

You hold a powerful and responsible position in the marketplace - an undeserved good review will make your credibility drop, an undeserved poor review can seriously undermine a company's market share.  I implore you to make a better effort in future.


Please note:  I have NO financial or other connection with Noteworthy Software besides being a satisfied customer.

 
Lawrie Pardy
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals, youfonymums 'n tubies.

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #20
Well said

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #21
Yes it looks like one of Judicial Enquiries" where they take a pre concieved idea
and arrive at a pre meditated conclusion"  Sydney Sheldon 

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #22
For the record, this is what I sent to info@toptenreviews.com:

Quote
Hi,

I wish to point out to you that there are many errors in your review of Noteworthy Composer. I'm not sure how important veracity is to your website, but I'd encourage you to review the review with the feedback below in mind. (Below, where I say "you", I mean your reviewer).
So that you get the picture, I've been using NWC for about 10 years. I ditched Mozart for it, as Mozart didn't do (and still doesn't - apparently) polyphony on staves. I haven't tried any of the other competitors listed, but note that they all cost on average at least twice as much. I do have problems with some aspects of NWC, but find that they are mostly  obscure or idiomatic to the type of scoring I am doing. As a computer programmer and as a musician, I find NWC works very well for me. NWC2 (still in beta) has many features that leave the competitors for dead.

I know that reviewers have a limited time for their craft, and this may adversely reflect on all reviewed software, but feel that the errors in fact need correcting.

1) You claim it only accommodates up to 8 voices per staff. A cursory test shows me that it can do at least 16.

2) The definition of cross-staff beaming is incorrect, btw. Surely you mean beaming between staves, rather than beaming flagged notes of different lengths? fyi: NWC doesn't do cross-stave beaming, but I think you'd need to re-review all the software before correcting this error.

3) You say that it can't do computer keyboard input. I dunno, I use this exclusively on NWC. I can only imagine that this mistake was a typo, or gross negligence.

4) Just on the .wav thing. Are you saying that all those competitors with a tick can accurately interpret - what? - polyphony? multitimbral sources, or just really clean single notes? I think more than a tick is required here. I agree entirely that NWC does none of those.

5) Control editor. I'm not sure what your reviewer had in mind as to capability, but I've been controlling pitch bend, channel volume, pan and many other midi controllers with NWC for nearly ten years.

6) The definition of Song Editor is missing.

7) The definition of Punch Recording as given is in fact a capability of NWC, though I suspect Punch Recording is demanding more than the definition.

8) Of course you can download patches and updates of Noteworthy Composer!

9) I think that NWC does satisfy the Knowledgebase Criterion, without calling it such. It certainly has "hints to better use the software and quick fixes to common software problems".

10) Agreed that a tutorial doesn't come with the program, but anyone tapping into the Noteworthy community will quickly find a 78 page tutorial written and revised by several mad keen NWC users.

11) I don't know why your reviewer thought that there wasn't a generic template that goes directly to customer service or customer support. I started using the "wishlist" nearly ten years ago.

12) NWC DOES work on Vista. And NT as far as I know.
You review indeed writes in the detailed review, "Windows 95, 98, ME, NT, 2000, XP or Vista"

13) Turning to http://music-notation-software-review.toptenreviews.com/noteworthy-composer-review.html
I find the program excessively easy to use. The "continuous horizontal scroll" means that I am not bothered by pagination issues whilst inputting notes. Also, being so computer keyboard friendly, input is very fast and can be totally mouse free.

14) Shame you didn't get the real time entry to work. I personally don't use it, but didn't have any problem verifying its activation.

15) You reviewer says "For this price, we would have expected more editing options like a mixer, a piano roll editor and punch recording." I find this an absurd statement. This is the second cheapest product that was reviewed! I see no importance in a mixer (btw: if by "a mixer" the reviewer means that channels can be balanced, this is indeed a capability of NWC). Piano roll editing and punch recording is more for midi processors rather than notation processors, but I guess if you want to pay more for that sort of stuff then okay.

16) Help/Support. For over ten years NWC has had a fantastic user community on both public forums and (for registered users) nntp-based newsgroups. These have provided users with lots of support, provided the vendor with lots of feedback, and have been a very cheerful place.

17) Your reviewer says "We found Noteworthy Composer a difficult program to use with a confusing staff set up and inaccurate note placement."
Hmm. I found NWC difficult for about ten minutes. Then I clicked with how it works, and it has been a breeze to use ever since. I don't understand what the reviewer means by confusing staff set-up, and inaccurate note placement sounds like they were reviewing a different program. These statements are completely baffling to people who actually use the software.

18)  "For half the cost, you can purchase the Silver or Bronze award winning products.".
Ahem. The Silver and Bronze products are $99.95 and $399.95.  NWC is $39

So I guess no one actually checks the reviews before they are published.
I sincerely think you owe Noteworthy Software an apology.
If you'd like a more accurate review of NWC according to your criteria, I'd be happy to oblige. :-)

Sincerely,
....

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #23
I vote Andrew's the best letter so far for politeness and originality, while effectively making the point! :)

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #24
Not much time today, but outraged enough to write this short comment
=== snip ===

Dear Sir/Madam,

I was very surprised when I read your NWC review the other day.

Are you sure you did not review another program?

Keyboard input is the main input method, updates and patches are distributed on line, there is a large and active user community, a wealth of notated music available. There are many more errors in your review, but I lack the time to report them all.

I purchased NWC 10 years ago after ditching Mozart. I've been a satisfied customer ever since.

Really, at $39 (your Silver and Bronze are *much* more expensive), this is the best software ever. Please see nwc-scriptorium.org for what you can *really* do with this software. And you can do it without ever once touching a mouse, too!

Regards,
Wilm Boerhout
Zwolle, The Netherlands
Wilm Boerhout

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #25
Quote
... you'd run into the playback problem of displaying highlights on the words on the correct verse and only correct verse's lyrics ...
It can be accomplished using (hidden) local repeats, creatively arranged.
I'm not at home right now so I can't create an example to attach, but others might want to give it a try.


Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #27
I can only imagine...

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #28
Well ,I am cirtainly going to print out some of these replies, they are lovely suppliments to the Hints ,Tips and Tricks Manual .See what happens when you
ruffell a Noteworthiest's feathers.Maybe I shoud become a Spin Docter.

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #29
I sent the following to  info@toptenreviews.com:

I have been using NoteWorthy off-and-on for a few years. It's too bad that
you couldn't have reviewed NWC2, which is currently in Beta Testing. It is
available free to all registered users of NWC.

<This statement was not quite correct. It is free for registered users who have the 1.75 cd. Older users can get the 1.75 cd for $15. This is what I did, and it was the best $15 I've spent on software.>

But I find two glaring errors in your review of NWC.
1. Keyboard input is available, and is much easier and faster than mouse
input. You can enter note and rest values and positions, sharps, flats and
naturals, bar lines, ties and dots, all with the right hand by using the
numeric keypad. The other functions also have keyboard shortcuts.
2. NWC is the second lowest cost product reviewed. (The lowest is only $4.04
cheaper.) You state: "For half the cost, you can purchase the Silver or
Bronze award winning products." Those products, according to your review,
are actually $60.95 and $360.95 more than NWC, about two and a half times
and nine times the cost of NWC.


Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #30
Here's the message I sent to the "reviewer". 
 
It would be interesting to hear about any replies folks receive.
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 
 
Dear TopTenReviews Manager,

This is to call your attention to serious issues in your review of the  "NoteWorthy Composer"  software.

Certainly there are subjective parts to any review.  I'm sure you receive messages from time to time taking you to task for this-or-that in a review.

Please note that this message to you is not about subjectivity.  It is about several statements in your review of the software's operation which are demonstrably false.

Your review describes several elements of the NWC software in a way that is utterly (and in some instances, laughably) contrary to the way they are used.

- - -

Finally your review concludes with the following statement (is  "half the cost"  supposed to be funny?):

(Quote):

    "For half the cost, you can purchase the
     Silver or Bronze award winning products."

    ...  and it links to those two products which cost, respectively,  two-and-a-half times ($99.95)  and  ten times ($399.95)  as much as NoteWorthy ($39.00).

Price, however, is not the object here.  Inaccurate and potentially misleading review of software functions is the object.

- - -

By the way, for your information:  prior to retirement I was fortunate to manage a group of professional documentation developers, including writers, illustrators and editors.  Two works achieved industry awards.  I mention this to let you know that I'm well aware of issues regarding proper research, objectivity and fairness, as well as of time and space constraints in publishing articles.  I'm aware also of what constitutes 'good' customer feedback.

I am also a NoteWorthy Composer user, having tried and discarded several of the other software which you compare to it in your review.  For an example, I've used NoteWorthy to score complex orchestral and choral works consisting of several dozen music staves extending over hundreds of measures.

Obviously ...  'ease of use' as well as accurate and rapid note entry, with flexibility in controlling dynamics and playback options, are essential to works of that scope.

- - -

Rather than continuing here with a list of your review's discrepancies in this initial e-mail message, let's first see your degree of interest based on your customer feedback.

If you will be so kind to reply, I'll be happy to give you a brief list of your review's issues and errors.

Best regards,

Joseph Roberts
Jacksonville, Florida

 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 



 

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #31

Andrew Purdam wrote:
So that you get the picture, I've been using NWC for about 10 years. I ditched Mozart for it, as Mozart didn't do (and still doesn't - apparently) polyphony on staves...

Hello Andrew,
I just wandered in here (as a MOZART-user) and I find it a bit ironic that you make the same mistake as you accuse TopTenReviews of. You could at least have *verified* your above statement.
I'm really not here to pick a fight; I apologise if you did check but could not find it.

Anyway, reading that review gives me the distinct impression that the whole excercise was meant to put the silver medal in the most favourable light, and the errors and mis-information in both the Noteworthy and MOZART reviews (and possibly others) are so obvious that I have the impression they were put there deliberately.

I'll watch this thread to see if there will be a reply from TopTenReviews.


Regards,
Alvatrus



Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #32
lol....apparently it's pretty easy to misrepresent something...

I wonder if they're getting all these emails and thinking, "Oh, look!  More junk mail!  Don't tell the boss...he's already in a crummy mood today."

Makes you think...are they even looking at these and redirecting them to the appropriate people?

Just a thought...  By the way... They listed five or so email addresses on their site (under Contact Us).  I just picked the first one because I didn't feel like figuring out what they all were.  Just in case someone wants to try a different address...

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #33
Andrew Purdam wrote:
So that you get the picture, I've been using NWC for about 10 years. I ditched Mozart for it, as Mozart didn't do (and still doesn't - apparently) polyphony on staves...

Hello Andrew,
I just wandered in here (as a MOZART-user) and I find it a bit ironic that you make the same mistake as you accuse TopTenReviews of. You could at least have *verified* your above statement.


Hi alvatrus,

Is the mistake you refer to my statement that Mozart apparently still doesn't do polyphony on staves?
That was simply based on Top Ten's own table. In my opinion, the use of the word "apparently" lets me off the hook!
(It is much briefer than "according to your own research") :-)

I agree with your point that the whole exercise is to sell the Medal winners. I wonder if those products have bigger ads on the website?

Cheers,
A

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #34
David P notified the newsgroup participants of the existence of this review. A number of reposnses have been made, and for the benefit of any one else who may wish to write to the reviewers suggested we place a copy of what we have said here. I am not sure that I add anything that has not already been said, but if it helps anyone to frame their own reply in an effort to have the review corrected, here is what I wrote.

Please, don't use any of it word for word, if any at all, or we won't be taken seriously but if anyone wants to use the points in it again in their own words, please do so. I hope I didn't get anything wrong (apart from spelling and as I see now the odd grammatical slip), and I have probably also missed some important points as well!

Vive le roi! ie NWC.

Stuart Moffatt
Appendix:

Gentlemen

Your review of the Noteworthy Composer (NWC) software has been brought to my attention.

http://music-notation-software-review.toptenreviews.com/noteworthy-composer-
review.html

It is important, if your reviews are to be respected and taken seriously, that they should in all respects be accurate and reliable. I am sure that you would agree with this. Your reputation as a reviewer depends upon this.

I have been a user of the NWC products for over ten years, as well as others such as come from Cakewalk, Roland, Myriad as well as a number of wav to midi converters, mp3 and wav producers and a variety of synthesisers using soft fonts etc. I am sorry to say that, whilst there are limitations in NWC,
I think your review is inaccurate in a number of points.

As matters of fact:

1    Your final statement says 'for half the price' but the products to which you refer cost more than twice the price of NWC if the information on the pages to which you link are correct.

2    On the summary page
    a    you say that NWC is not supported under NT and Vista. I have happily used NWC on more than one NT configuration without any limitation in its functionality. I have not yet set up Vista, but am aware that others users of NWC are moving to Vista. The problems they have faced related to lack of drivers for sounds cards etc, not with NWC itself. Did you actually try to run NWC on either of these systems?
    As a matter  of subjectivity the fact that NWC does not run on Mac OS is one very significant reason why I have not switched to using an Apple, preferring to put up with the MS system for the benefit of being able to use NWC.

    b    patches and updates are all available for download from the NWC site - indeed the software will offer to check for updates from time to time.

    c    it is possible to use the computer keyboard to directly enter notes (and chords) of any value and pitch with or without accidentals, rests at any location and of any value, and bar lines. The locations, values etc may be modified by simple keyboard shortcuts eg + to double the lenght of a note, or to modify stem direction. This is a very fast way to transcribe and write music. Play back as you type is optional.
    Indeed all things may be done using the computer keyboard, though it is necessary for somethings to use the menus or properties dialogues for the selected item.

3    It surprises me that direct input from a midi keyboard did not work for you. That suggests that you did not set up your midi inputs correctly - I appreciate the problem, how often have I switched from one music scoring programme to another and forgotten that the limitations of midi require me to set up the other to receive midi input from the appropriate active port.

4    Bar lines do not need to be entered as you go, and you correctly say NWC does not prevent you from entering as many notes as you want into a single bar. I see this as no problem. Indeed it irritates me that some programmes prevent me from putting 5 crotchets into a bar when the time signature is 4/4. I often do not want to put time signatures in as I go- it interrupts the creative flow! - I can come back and deal with that afterwards.
    If when you have finished notating, and you have not changed the time signature then you may ask NWC to audit the bar lines and it will insert them for you appropriately. This will also bring to light those points where you have failed, eg to put four crotchtes in you 4/4 bars! Alternatively a simple key stroke will add them wherever you require them.

5    The audit facility extends to accidentals, note stems and enharmonic spelling. The force accidentals and audit accidental options are exceedingly useful when after entering your music you wish to enter key signatures. Force accidentals will mark all notes as they are allowing you to enter appropriate key signatures. Auditing accidental will then remove all suprflouous accidentals from the score.

6    The absence of a mixer does not hinder balance instruments. NWC responds to dynamic entries and adjusts dynamics appropriately in response to cresc. dim marks. It is also possible to independently adjust the volume and velocity of each staff and if required each note on any staff. .

7    For help and support there are active public and private forums (one hosted by NWC another at Yahoo) and a private newsgroup hosted by NWC for registered users. Those who participate in these are always willing to help others who pose questions. The moderator is also active in the newsgroup.
    I have always found the internal help system to be adequate. Help is available from the menu, also from dialogues (the help button is context sensitive), and context sensitive pop up help is available on F1.

8    You did not mention layering of staves which allows users to superimpose one or more staves on another. This is ideal for choral part work, and other instances in orchestral music where first and second will share one staff.

9    A variety of additional fonts are available to provide items eg mordents, appregiation marks etc which are not available in the standard font.

Other subjective issues:

For ease of use, I have found nothing that comes close to NWC for the ease of input of music. If there were a system that could take input directly in real time from my midi keyboard and accurately determine that I meant a crotchet or quaver, distinguishing between a pentuplet run and two crotchets
followed by a triplet, recognising that I have slowed down (for that difficult bit) - even though I have not changed the tick speed - and still notate a crotchet as a crotchet and not as a crotchet + a few
hemidemisemiquavers, that would automatically enter the change of tempo in a tempo staff at each beat, then I would consider using it before NWC for data entry! There are other systems that I may use for specialist items, eg voice reproduction, mixing of midi input with audio input, but the source file
would always, almost without exception, be an NWC file.

The lack of a mixer, drum tabulation, import from or export to wav or mp3 has never been a problem for me. NWC2 which is available to beta testers has provided full orchestral percussion notation. It also contains wonderful find and replace, merge staff etc features.

I trust that you will see that I am trying to be fair. There are limitations in NWC, as a user I am aware of them, but they do not get in the way of what it is a music notation package. I shall be grateful if you will reconsider the conclusions in your review and correct the inaccuracies in the report.

Thank you

Stuart Moffatt
Stuart Moffatt

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #35
My email to TopTenReviews:

Please can I flag up what appears to be a serious mixup in your music notation review?

Your review of NoteWorthy Composer (which I am familiar with) has so many factual errors and contradictions that I can only assume there must be some mixup with text from another review.

For example, notation entry via the computer keyboard is extremely straightforward (in fact that's why I started using NWC in the first place) and yet your side-by-side comparison table indicates that it is not even possible.

Similarly, the review states "For half the cost, you can purchase the Silver or Bronze award winning products". Yet these products are actually many times the price.

What's going on here? At least I know that I should ignore your reviews of any other products; I would not believe them.

Mark Wheatley
London, UK

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #36
What's going on here? At least I know that I should ignore your reviews of any other products; I would not believe them.

Ooooh...TopTenREVIEWS, you want some ICE for that BURN?  :)

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #37
I wonder if they are going to respond to these, or just tuck their tales and ignore them.

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #38
Now is there a top ten review page for top ten review sites? 

Their review really bugs me more because a naive user might actually put some credence in a site called top ten reviews.  And now I'm more bugged since I checked Google and a search for "review noteworthy composer" brings back their page for the first two hits.

(long time user, first time poster)

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #39
Way to go... I don't think I could possibly get an average posting rate like yours of .004 posts per day!  (I have .322 per day)

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #40
Ok, let me bump it up again then.  Someday I'll have more time to commit to my musical (non)career and contribute more here.

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #41
Welcome to the forum, Jay! Chances are, you are also eligible for the newsgroup.
Which is another very nice place to hang out, to share music, ideas, problems, workarounds, tips and OT items. Always good for a scream.
cheers,
Rob.

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #42
G'day Jay,
I would like to echo Rob's sentiments.
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals, youfonymums 'n tubies.

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #43
I'm too shocked and pissed off to even respond.

I wanna punch somebody/thing. *goes off*
:D

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #44
Well well well, it looks like they must have read what we all had to say!

I have just re-visited this review and it has been significantly updated. 

The actual review is here:
http://music-notation-software-review.toptenreviews.com/noteworthy-composer-review.html

The side by side comparo here:
http://music-notation-software-review.toptenreviews.com/

Well done everyone, and a pat on the back to the reviewers for listening.

My follow-up email:
Quote
Dear sir/madam,
I would like to thank you for heeding the comments from many of the NWC users who I know sent you emails about the first review of Noteworthy Composer.

While at a subjective level I don't necessarily agree with the perception, at least the details are now reasonably accurate.

Unfortunately I don't know when the corrections were made so I apologise if this thank you is somewhat "out of date".

Thank you,
Lawrie Pardy (a VERY happy NWC user)
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals, youfonymums 'n tubies.

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #45
Great job, guys! I was away from the forum for a couple of hours and by the time I got back the storm had hit the Top Ten Reviews website and the review was already fixed. Mostly. It still has a few errors (cross-staff beaming? Not without workarounds), but it looks much better than what was originally reported (and reacted to) here. All done before I knew anything about it. Shucks - some folks jest have all the fun....

....but you know what really interests me? Look at their list of top ten notation products. No Sibelius and no Finale. Did they fail to test them, or did our favorite little notation program actually score far enough above them to knock them out of the top ten and off the review list altogether? I'd give worlds to know....

Cheers,

Bill

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #46
G'day Bill,
umm, the original post was last June...  Think you must have missed seeing the dates :)

Anyhow, I was online a bit earlier and saw that someone was checking out the thread - that prompted me to have another look at the review given that the reviewers didn't respond directly to any of us - reasonable I guess...

In any case, the review had been updated, but when in the last 4 months I don't know.

BTW, their definition of "cross staff beaming" seems to simply be what we would call "beaming" - it doesn't appear to have anything to do with beaming from one staff to another (a la some piano and harp type scores {plus organs etc. I guess}).

I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals, youfonymums 'n tubies.

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #47
Well, you're right, Lawrie - I didn't look at the date of the original post. You had all the fun while I was out of town instead of just offline...;)

But I'm still curious about the absence of Sibelius and Finale. Very curious.

Bill

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #48
Just an FYI: The linked review does include a Finale product.

Re: 2007 Software Review Notation Pragrams

Reply #49
BTW, their definition of "cross staff beaming" seems to simply be what we would call "beaming" ...
What are the odds they mean AutoBeam?  That beams "across the [entire] staff" in one operation.