Editing SCORE (software) (section)

==Product reviews==
[[File:Advertisement for SCORE, 1989.png|thumb|Advertisement for SCORE from 1989]]

Version 1 was announced in the press at the beginning of 1987 with an expected release date of April that year, and a predicted price tag of $500.<ref name="sjmn1987">{{cite news |last1=Hertelendy |first1=Paul |title=Software for sweet airs |work=San Jose Mercury News (Arts & Books) |agency=Mercury News |publisher=Bay Area News Group |date=25 January 1987}}</ref>  Its release was noted in the ''[[Computer Music Journal]]'' issue of winter 1987.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Roads |first1=Curtis |title=Products of Interest |journal=Computer Music Journal |date=1987 |volume=11 |issue=4 |pages=60–61 |jstor=3680248 |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/3680248 |access-date=31 October 2021}}</ref>

Version 1.1 was reviewed by ''Computer Music Journal'' in autumn 1988.  DRAW was not yet available, but had been promised.  A later reviewer was told by technical support that making the DRAW programme available to users was an afterthought.<ref name="signell"/>  On-screen help was described as 'awkward and unenlightening', but the software 'rewards determined effort to climb the learning curve with powerful abilities'.  'For routine music printing, it is probably more expensive, more complicated, and less accommodating than some of its competitors, but Score is more powerful than any of them.'<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Rothstein |first1=Joseph |title=Products of Interest |journal=Computer Music Journal |date=1988 |volume=12 |issue=3 |pages=84–86 |jstor=3680347 |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/3680347 |access-date=31 October 2021}}</ref>

Writing for ''[[Electronic Musician]]'', [[Carter Scholz]] found the interface of version 2.0 'opaque and maddening' though concluded SCORE was an 'amazing' 'power tool' which 'sets a new standard' for professionals for whom ease of use would be less important than the results which could be obtained.<ref name="em1988"/> A [[floating-point unit|math coprocessor]] was considered essential to prevent the program response being sluggish when handling the [[floating-point arithmetic]] for screen operations.

[[Keyboard (magazine)|''Keyboard'']]'s [[Jim Aikin]] agreed that a considerable investment of time was required to learn the package.<ref name="k1988">{{cite magazine |last=Aikin |first=Jim |date=July 1988 |title=Keyboard Report: SCORE |magazine=Keyboard |publisher=Future}}</ref>  Scholz had three months and admitted he had only 'scratched the surface' of its capabilities.  Aikin came to similar conclusions, suggesting improvements to the interface and input methods would make it more accessible.

''[[PC Magazine]]'', reviewing SCORE at the end of 1988, concluded that the software was aimed at accomplished musicians who were prepared to put in the time to learn it, and that the design of the program and manual were thorough and clear.<ref>{{cite magazine |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=29 November 1988  |title=Music Notation Software |magazine=PC Magazine |publisher=Ziff Davis |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TJuFGeKsMJ0C&pg=PA264 |access-date=28 January 2020}}</ref> Three years later the same magazine described the program as having 'ushered in the era of true desktop music publishing' allowing musicians to turn out 'engraver-quality printed music of any complexity', but still admitting that it had a 'ruthlessly difficult interface', a 'confusing amalgam of command line and function keys' which 'never fully made the transition from the mainframe computers' where it originated.  Editing music once entered was 'cumbersome and daunting' and the poor documentation made the program even more inaccessible.<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Kendall |first=Rob |date=11 June 1991 |title=SCORE: Notation Power at a Price |magazine=PC Magazine |publisher=Ziff Davis |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LNhQLiJ8TgQC&pg=PT494 |access-date=28 January 2020}}</ref>

Reviewing version 2.10 in March 1990 for [[Notes (journal)|''Notes'']], Garrett Bowles noted that SCORE surpassed any of the other contemporary notation programmes (The Copyist III, DynaDuet, [[MusicPrinter Plus]], The Note Processor, Personal Composer System, and Theme, the Music Editor) on notational complexity, text handling, part extraction, page layout, and spacing of items on the staff.  On-screen help was now 'excellent', as were the extensive manuals (although some discussions of operations were considered 'too detailed').<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bowles |first1=Garrett |title=Music Software |journal=Notes |date=March 1990 |volume=46 |issue=3 |pages=660–684 |jstor=941442 |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/941442 |access-date=31 October 2021}}</ref>

Karl Signell, writing in spring 1991, observed that version 3 had the most 'ungraceful, counter-intuitive interface', but noted that it was faster than other programmes (including [[Finale (scorewriter)|Finale]], Music Writer, NoteWriter and Professional Composer) as well as producing one of the most professional looking scores.<ref name=signell/>