Darreg Compared to Blackwood

>>The funny thing is that Blackwood's microtonal music is generally much
>>better than Darreg's.
>Well, this is a subjective thing, but I agree. But I will note that...
>1) The best of Ivor's stuff is roughly as good as the best of Blackwood's.
>2) The majority of Ivor's work is un-recorded.

It's kinda hard to compare the two, but I guess I more or less agree.

Ivor was always operating in lifestyle that might be described as "panic
to get xenharmonics in the public eye before he dies". He intentionally
rejected the idea of devising and becoming fluent with alternative notation
systems, because he concluded that doing so would just simply take too much
time. That in turn then meant that he couldn't get involved with music
complex enough to, practically speaking, require notation to devise it.

Easley Blackwood is pretty much the exact reverse. As with me, he
almost strictly in terms of notation, so his music lacks the exciting
spontaneity and flow that you hear in Neil Haverstick's improvs, or Ivor
Darreg's music. So although Blackwood's music is a little more "stiff"
(and mine is stiffer still, although I've almost got that problem licked
now), it is nevertheless more inspiring than Ivor's music in terms of each
composition making a really specific musical statement.

Ivor also had extremely meager equipment to work with compared to
Blackwood's army of graduate students and grant to work from. That until
right at the end when Brian McLaren and others helped Ivor out. Ivor's
creativity really started flourishing again when he had some more inspiring
and powerful equipment to work with. And then he died.

Another thing that makes them hard to compare is that Ivor was much more
interested in making humorous commentary in his writings and his music.
Blackwood's music on the other hand is pretty much academic and "serious".
Both approaches are valuable of course, each having its strengths and
weaknesses.