Notation and Interpretation

I've been reading an essay, if you could call it that, by Cornelius Cardew, about systems of notation and the interpretation of notation by the performer. If that seems dry, it's really not. Though I'm reading it for uni, it's quite funny, at least in my mind:

"I have heard people criticizing interpretations of music in a variety of ways, 'he played some wrong notes, but was faithful to the composer's intention', or 'he played correctly but seemed to miss the point'. Such criticism disturbs me (though I have often found it valid) because it implies that there is something behind the notation, something that the composer meant but did not write. In my piece there is no intention separate from the notation; the intention is that the player should respond to the notation."

Also, this:

"15 - The only criterion for a sound is: 'was the player expecting (intending) to make it?' If not, it was a mistake, and makes a different sort of claim to beauty. As a mistake, it comes under the criteria for action: mistakes are the only truly spontaneous actions we are capable of."

and this:

"19- Towards a music without structure! The 'feeling of structure' is not a very important feeling, I should say, and it is therefore fine if a note goes, say, flat or sharp at the end of a breath. It gives an apparent reason for stopping (the real reason, after all).


Ok, maybe not hilarious. But interesting, and entertaining. To me, anyway. Does anyone else think he's being funny in the first quote?