We did extensive interviewing and documentation of the Karaoke Convention proceedings. My assistant and I are still processing them. I was struck by some of the comments of spectators, one man comes to mind who said to his friend, quite upset, "I can't believe we just cheered for that speech!", after hearing one re-speech from a candidate he found particularly repugnant. It is part of the character of the performance, that you cheer for the performer when the track tells you to and it is only after or during that you process that action. I'm in the process of making a series audio documentaries about the project that will contain extensive participant feedback.

It is very hard to say as the proceedings were quite widespread and at many venues. The crowds were varied from several hundred at the opening to just a handful at some Karaoke Convention Centers, sometimes the smaller crowds gave the richest performances.

As this is a site-specific art project that was designed for Denver at the time of the DNC, I don't plan on traveling the project elsewhere but I remain open to just the right invitation. This will not become my life's work. As an artist and cultural critic, I believe that it is important not to become your subject matter but rather to pass it through you, similar to what I'm asking performers to do in the Karaoke Convention. There are strong forces pulling us to commodify ourselves to serve the demands of a market desirous to consume, if I'm going to be consumed I'd rather it not be because I did the cooking and the serving.

 There is a systematic element to the editing and an element of feel/aesthetic preference. I believe it is important to allow for both of these methodologies [mind and less mind] to co-exist. The speeches are mostly single excerpts or two or three pieces from somewhere in the speech with some framing material [i.e. Thank yous at the head and a conclusion.] I made the "decision" to edit them when I realized that the versions of the speeches most people receive via televised broadcast are already so heavily edited, as was the footage that was available to me. Thus, "to edit" or "not to edit" was not really the question but simply what do with the edit I'd been given. The edits I made were usually based on identifying particularly interactive elements in the candidates speeches. I really wanted to support the re-speakers in the performance I was asking them to give, this meant crafting a viable script and a set of props for them to work with, limiting duration was an important part of this. I was also drawn to moments when the candidates spoke directly about themselves and their personal histories as well as moments when they referred explicitly to "the people" in the various ways that they all did.

A Sampling of Peltz's Inventory: