Wendy Carlos is a fairly well-known musician/composer who specializes in writing, performing, and arranging musical works for synthesizer. Two of her best known works are “Switched-On Bach” and the soundtrack to “A Clockwork Orange.” Her earlier works (including the two just mentioned) were originally credited to Walter Carlos, and she claims on her Web site that this was because women weren’t accepted as synthesizer musicians when she began recording so she passed herself off as a man. However, I clearly remember a Playboy interview with her in which she states she was born a man and had a sex change operation. Does anyone else remember this interview? I seem to remember she was very open about her transsexualism in the interview and I wonder why she now dissembles on her Web site. Did I miss something?
From Who2:
None of the other three or four other biographies I scanned mentioned this.
I could have sworn I opened this thread in Cafe Society. Could a mod please move it there?
This biography goes into quite a bit of detail about Walter/Wendy’s transexual surgery:
It goes on to say that for seven years after her surgery, she pretended to be a man:
So both stories are right.
W. Carlos has been an aggressive revisionist about her gender swap, even to the point of taking legal action against reference sources that mention her ex-Walterness.
“My friend” (ahem) works for a company - that will remain nameless - that has received at least a dozen threatening communications from Carlos’ lawyer with regard to this one issue.
She has even had all of her old albums re-released with her new name on them, as if Walter Carlos never existed at all.
:rolleyes:
http://www.wendycarlos.com/biog.html
She’s always been a woman accordijng to this bio [sub](at least inside)[/sub] Part of bio below.
etc. etc
Wasn’t there a Jazz Musician who died a few years ago, Billy something or other who was a woman passing as a man and if IIRC married with (adopted) kids! Only discovered post mortem. Ah here it is…
The life story of jazz singer and musician Billy Tipton is a biographer’s dream. Born female and named Dorothy Tipton in 1914, Tipton began passing as a man and going by the name Billy in 1933. His “deception” was not discovered until his death in 1989.
Man that split face man/woman book cover is spooky!
One of the first CDs I ever bought was the soundtrack to A Clockwork Orange. The liner notes clearly credit the electronic music to Walter Carlos.
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_009.html
You can thank me later.
It sounds like Miss Carlos is a little bit off the beam. I mean everyone knows that Walter existed. What can you do?
I remember hearing a long interview with pop-music guy Momus on NPR, and they mentioned that he did a song about Walter/Wendy Carlos and got his pants sued off him. He re-released his album minus the song about Carlos.
Methinks s/he doth protest too much!
Find a few pictures of Wendy. They speak for themselves.
I have the1970 edition of the World Book Year Book , which on page 482, under the heading “Recordings”, features a picture of a male “Walter Carlos” with a Moog Synthesizer (with about 30 wires and 100 sockets on a wall console that looks like it could be from a Boeing 757).
What exactly can she sue about? Truth is always a defense against libel, right? And it shouldn’t be all that hard to prove she was once “Walter”. Hell, I could do it by fishing out my copy of the Clockwork Orange soundtrack!
Certainly.
I remember hearing about this on a new rock radio show some time ago. Seems Walter Carlos did have a sex-change operation, and is now living as Wendy Carlos. This thread just brought it back to me, is all.
I have this series of books called “Bathroom Readers”, and I’m sure that one of them has more detail on Billy Tipton. When I get a chance, I will post more detail on this story.
California law makes it illegal to publicise that an individual is a transsexual without their consent. Whether this law meets Constitutional muster is questionable, especially in the case of a public figure like Ms. Carlos, whose history is well-known.
I stunned that this would even pass a common sense muster much less constitutional muster. Do you have some cite for this law? If true (re a sex change operation) it is a valid observational fact and it seems like a straightfoward restraint of free speech to prevent discussion of that fact.
I think she’s experiencing Moog Swings !
I no longer have a reference to the case (it involved an individual who was running for minor public office who was “outed” by her opponent as being a transsexual and who successfully sued her opponent under California generalized right-to-privacy statute).
And I don’t agree with your conclusion, either. In general, medical information (other than information concerning infectious disease) is information we, as a society, consider private. The right of free speech as originally conceived under English common law did not include the right to spread scurrilous gossip, whether or not it is true. It is not obvious (to anyone whose conception of free speech is more refined than “I can say whatever I want and you can’t stop me”) that speech invasive of privacy should be considered “free speech”.
I think it should be pretty obvious that the right to free speech is now much broader than was originally conceived under English common law - particularly in the States, where the right is broader in general than it is in England.
In any case, the cite is Diaz vs Oakland Tribune (188 Cal. Rptr. 762 (Ct. App. 1983). The decision wasn’t quite as clear as KellyM portrays it: the Court didn’t hold that there is no right to publish this information at all, but that the publisher must demonstrate it to be “newsworthy”. I don’t believe there was any reference to it being medical information, either, it was simply treated as an aspect of a person’s private life that may or may not be anybody else’s business.
I think ruadh has misinterpreted my general commentary on the interplay between free speech and privacy as specific comments on a court decision I haven’t read in several years. As such, I object to the statement “The decision wasn’t quite as clear as KellyM portrays it” as I made no portrayal of the decision at all.
Have a nice day, and read twice before you post.