I can’t quite remember the point I became enamored with all things rock ‘n roll. Maybe it was in 1989 when my cousin Joanne and her then-boyfriend picked me up to take me for a joyride in her red convertible blasting Winger from the speakers. It could have been when I staged imaginary shows with leftover Halloween pumpkins imagining they were Chrissie Hynde and the Pretenders. Or it could have been the moment when, en route to church with a friend, her mother asked what kind of music we wanted to hear and I instantly belted out, “Rock ‘n roll!” I’d just barely entered the first grade.
Nearly if not equally as influential as its music, the fashion of rock ‘n roll has been iconic throughout the decades. From Elvis’ rhinestone-studded leather getups to David Bowie’s acid rainbow of Ziggy Stardust costumes to Axl Rose’s kilts, the clothes worn by rockers over the decades have defined them almost as much as their riffs. Even styles that weren’t initially accepted—glam rock bands such as Poison were often slammed by critics at the dawn of that genre, and Joan Jett herself was dubbed “Diamond Dog” in high school—ended up going platinum. It should be no surprise, then, how giddy with excitement I was when I opened up to the First Look page of Elle to discover their own special tribute to Axl in his Welcome to the Jungle days, fingerless gloves and all.
By the time fall rolls around, most are ready to stash their sundresses and indulge in some darker fall fashion. And it seems that every year many of the fall collections are somehow influenced by rock ‘n roll style. This season’s offerings, however, look especially tantalizing. I was never a big fan of Justin Timberlake; far from being a boy-band groupie in junior high, I was one of those rebel chicks who blasted the Offspring and (what is now considered) old-school Green Day and mocked N’Sync as “N’Stink”. However, a certain leather jacket from his William Rast line has succeeded in making me salivate as much as some of the girls in my seventh-grade class did when his golden ‘fro graced the cover of YM magazine. This is no ordinary leather jacket: both fringed and studded, it picks up right where the King’s signature embellished capes left off. It’s one of those things that you will wear eternally and will never fail to make your mother grimace. But then again, much like rebel music, that’s the point of rebel fashion, isn’t it?
Clothes aren’t the only part of a rocker’s wardrobe that bask in the limelight.I have a pair of suede double-platform boots that the same cousin who took me for a spin in her red convertible twenty years ago calls my “Paul Stanley boots”. Not surprisingly, I was honored. And if he took a gander at the fall ’09 shoes that have just begun to emerge, I think Paul Stanley himself would do a double take. Giuseppe Zanotti has created an amazing set of ankle boots for Balmain that just rock hard; made of soft black leather, they are positively screaming for Sid Vicious with their myriad zippers. Catherine Malandrino has created an over-the-knee style with a biker-esque wing Bret Michaels would possibly go gaga over. Juicy Couture has just released a style with a gold-studded strap slung around the ankle, and both Michael Kors and Loeffler Randall boast multi-buckle booties. And Christian Louboutin has just released a piece of studded leather deliciousness that would have all four members of KISS bolting to Neiman Marcus to snap up their own pair.
So does the look reflect the genre, or vice versa? I’d say it’s a bit of both. After all, hair bands only received their moniker from untamed (and Aqua-netted) manes such as Bon Jovi’s, and the word “grunge” was interchangeable in referring to either the music or the fashion trend. I also find it more than a tad poseurish when many of today’s pop tarts belt out sugary Top-40 singles in heavy-metal studs and leather. Same with fashionistas who don’t have a clue about rock ‘n roll but just want in on the trend because some magazine editor said so. So yes, if you see me around on the street you’d admit I do take my style cues from Axl Rose sometimes. But chances also are that I don’t see you because I’m zoning out to his heavenly screaming.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Monday, July 6, 2009
The Perils of Holiday Dressing
The Fourth of July is a day when I steer clear of anything remotely patriotic. Unfortunately, I got an eyeful of a woman about my mother’s age (and please note my mother is pushing seventy) outfitted in a red-white-and-blue getup from head to toe. It was something like a skintight tank top with a glittering flag transfer and denim short-shorts. A red sequined scrunchie and screaming red lipstick capped off the look. There is really only one day on the calendar that should be tolerated, and it’s October 31st.
At a young age I was like any other kid who took dressing for the occasion literally on holidays. For Halloween, I had a haunted house sweater and plenty of plastic pumpkin jewelry, including one battery-powered necklace that flashed on and off (and probably annoyed the hell out of passersby). There were a few occasions I dressed up like my interpretation of pilgrim on Thanksgiving. For Christmas, I had the works—printed turtlenecks, festive socks, a Santa snowglobe necklace, even a feathered sweater with matching gold leggings which I considered my “holiday outfit”. I had plenty of heart-themed crap for Valentine’s Day and a cropped lavender jacket that I wore every Easter until I outgrew it. And I always decorated the house, albeit sometimes to the point of tackiness.
I still love holidays and always enjoy getting into the spirit, but as sentient adults I think we need to be able to draw the line fashionwise. Though it would be generally agreed minishorts and a Lycra tank shouldn’t be seen on any seventy-year-old woman outside the confines of a trailer park, it isn’t really fit that’s the biggest concern in this case. I have seen plenty of women (and men!) publicly decked out in the most gagworthy clothes that seem to fit just fine: head boppers, flashing ties, oversized theme jewelry, prints that make you need a dose of antacid every time you set eyes on them. Some people must think that any holiday besides Halloween is an excuse to waltz into the office just short of being in full-on costume. And no, just because Grandma made you that Santa sweater doesn’t give you the right to parade it around in full view. The way I see it, suiting up as Santa in the workplace or morphing into a walking American flag on Independence Day is actually more of an insult than a salute to the occasion. Never mind that no one really needed an eyeful of Trailer Trash Lady’s cottage-cheese-on-steroids thighs on display, her flagrant outfit made the dimples even more obvious than they would be under normal circumstances. But I’m thinking she still could have given a nod to patriotism in a navy sundress or red sandals.
Generally, any type of accessorizing that revolves around a theme should be approached with caution. After about age 12, holiday dressing begins to change meaning from a color-coded dress-up game to a bit of extra glitz that shouldn’t go overkill. Unsure about guidelines? If you find yourself looking like a walking Christmas tree on Christmas or a living, breathing American flag on Independence day, you’re clearly missing the mark.
At a young age I was like any other kid who took dressing for the occasion literally on holidays. For Halloween, I had a haunted house sweater and plenty of plastic pumpkin jewelry, including one battery-powered necklace that flashed on and off (and probably annoyed the hell out of passersby). There were a few occasions I dressed up like my interpretation of pilgrim on Thanksgiving. For Christmas, I had the works—printed turtlenecks, festive socks, a Santa snowglobe necklace, even a feathered sweater with matching gold leggings which I considered my “holiday outfit”. I had plenty of heart-themed crap for Valentine’s Day and a cropped lavender jacket that I wore every Easter until I outgrew it. And I always decorated the house, albeit sometimes to the point of tackiness.
I still love holidays and always enjoy getting into the spirit, but as sentient adults I think we need to be able to draw the line fashionwise. Though it would be generally agreed minishorts and a Lycra tank shouldn’t be seen on any seventy-year-old woman outside the confines of a trailer park, it isn’t really fit that’s the biggest concern in this case. I have seen plenty of women (and men!) publicly decked out in the most gagworthy clothes that seem to fit just fine: head boppers, flashing ties, oversized theme jewelry, prints that make you need a dose of antacid every time you set eyes on them. Some people must think that any holiday besides Halloween is an excuse to waltz into the office just short of being in full-on costume. And no, just because Grandma made you that Santa sweater doesn’t give you the right to parade it around in full view. The way I see it, suiting up as Santa in the workplace or morphing into a walking American flag on Independence Day is actually more of an insult than a salute to the occasion. Never mind that no one really needed an eyeful of Trailer Trash Lady’s cottage-cheese-on-steroids thighs on display, her flagrant outfit made the dimples even more obvious than they would be under normal circumstances. But I’m thinking she still could have given a nod to patriotism in a navy sundress or red sandals.
Generally, any type of accessorizing that revolves around a theme should be approached with caution. After about age 12, holiday dressing begins to change meaning from a color-coded dress-up game to a bit of extra glitz that shouldn’t go overkill. Unsure about guidelines? If you find yourself looking like a walking Christmas tree on Christmas or a living, breathing American flag on Independence day, you’re clearly missing the mark.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Steve Madden is a Fraud: The War Against Poseurs
I was absentmindedly clicking through the shoe selection on Nordstrom.com when I thought I saw a pair of Stuart Weitzmans I wanted. I nearly clicked the picture when I suddenly veered the arrow away; beneath the picture it read “Steve Madden”. I thought I was seeing a pair of Coach suede flats, but the description again read “Steve Madden”—they were literally missing nothing but the Coach insignia on the gold button. Christian Louboutin? Marc Jacobs? Jimmy Choo? Steve Madden, Steve Madden, Steve Madden.
It’s already common knowledge that designer fakes—as in, “Chanel” bags patched together by underage sweatshop laborers in China—are illegal, but how far can a brand go before crossing the line for stealing intellectual property? I know that to some out there I might sound like an elitist snob, but that isn’t my goal. Everyone has a threshold as to what they can afford, and for different reasons. I’m not saying that resorting to bargain buys out of necessity is a crime against fashion. The real crime against fashion that I’m attacking here is poseurism. I’ve been hoodwinked so many times into believing –by sight alone, of course—that Steve Madden’s shoes were some higher-up designer’s “real thing” that I sought to investigate exactly to what degree he’s willing to go in order to keep expanding his multimillion-dollar designer copycat shoe empire. What strikes a nerve with me is that often, Madden isn’t just making a trend or a general idea of a design financially accessible to the masses but actually carbon-copying another designer’s idea with cheaper materials.
Even the most high-end designers constantly play off of trends and even each other; the tartan phenomenon seems to pass from runway to runway each fall, and rock ‘n roll inspiration has run a consistent current through a number of the fall ’09 shows. However, it seems that more often than not, Madden isn’t just running with a trend like most other more affordable brands do, he downright copies it. And not only are many of his shoes shameless imitations, but cheap imitations, and it’s pretty obvious too. Often photos posted on internet shops may be deceiving; lighting and positioning can work wonders for crap materials and shoddy construction (believe me, that’s been proven one too many times with a couple of Target’s GO International collections. It’s not even that they appeared at all luxe on the site, but what might have received a passable grade online draped like my aunt’s old aprons in person). One of Madden’s shoes on the Nordstrom site was such a dead ringer for a Juicy Couture platform sandal with leather flowers down the center strap that I nearly clicked it till I read the fine print. In real life, however, I can spot a fake from the Sears Tower. I love playing those “guess the bargain” games they sometimes have in magazines because I get it right 9.998 times out of 10. Those shoes may appear to be bona fide Weitzmans or Choos or Louboutins to the naked eye, but closer inspection reveals a lack of intricate craftsmanship and detailing in the lookalikes. Never mind that from trial runs I can attest to them being nothing short of murder on your feet. Wondering exactly how many designers Madden is guilty of posing as and how far he’s willing to go with his facsimile footwear, I sucked in my breath and logged onto his website.
When I was a teenager, and a quite stupid one at that, Steve Madden shoes were all the rage. They were on the feet of all the most popular girls in junior high, and at the bar and bat mitzvah parties of my Jewish friends, 9 out of 10 pairs that were lining the dance floor by the end of the night bore that signature white tag. We were young and naïve to the fact that what was on our feet was actually some higher-end designer’s work of art redone in mass-market synthetics. Take, for example, the Stuart Weitzman “Timber”, the black version of which Carrie Underwood famously wore on a live TV performance, and its Madden doppelganger the “ZoeII”. From twenty feet away the inexperienced eye would have trouble telling them apart, save the slight color variation in the heel (Weitzman’s is degrade; Madden’s is monochrome). Both heels, however, are about 4 inches and conical. Both platforms are slightly tapered towards the front. Both have a center strap with straps running perpendicularly across, and both have ankle straps. Now here are the minor adjustments; as opposed to Weitzman, Madden chose to make all the straps buckle straps and place only one instead of two at the top. His center strap is also considerably narrower. But all this is virtually negligible from a couple of car lengths away. It’s only when you zoom into the shots of both shoes that you really begin to see the difference. Even precision lighting can’t camouflage the fact that Madden’s leather is dull without being soft (alright, I know this may sound extreme, but with all that I’ve absorbed on fashion over the years I have trained myself to distinguish things like this). Truly fine leather, Christian Louboutin’s use of which is a good example, has a certain soft shine to it that cheaper incarnations just can’t match. And Madden’s equally dull heels just can’t match the polish and fine grain of Weitzman’s.
Now I see how Madden gets away with it. He’ll tweak some minor details but keep the rest of the design virtually identical to the original so he can’t technically be accused of stealing intellectual property. The main difference between this and higher-end designers bouncing off of each other’s ideas is that in the latter scenario, no one would be able to mistake one model from another if presented with the two side by side, even from a considerable distance. Madden isn’t just being inspired by an aesthetic; he’s cheapifying models that already exist. Another thing I’ve come to notice over several months of following his counterfeiting ways is that he’s likely to work with styles that are a season or two old, so no one can, again, technically attack him for swiping their design right off the runway. Take, for example, the “Mandyy” (what is it with these ghetto monikers?). It’s nearly the mirror image of a Fall ’08 Christian Louboutin platform Mary Jane, but was just released as part of Madden’s summer collection. Now that the season for Louboutin’s model is over, Louboutin himself can’t legally balk. The “Marrvel” is an exact synthetic replica of a Gucci fall ’08 ankle boot, studs and all, only differing in that the original wasn’t a peeptoe. The “Caged” is basically the YSL spring ’09 cage bootie that fashion editors went wild over, save that Madden’s hits lower on the ankle. The “Layyla” is Louboutin’s spring ’09 platform gladiator with a bit of skewing of the straps. There is a fall ’09 patent pump of Louboutin’s that has been Maddenized, but the slight variation in shade and lack of Louboutin’s peeptoe cushion the retail giant from any lawsuits. Same with Louboutin’s spanking new Lady Page, which has been shamelessly redubbed the Madden “Regaal” (even the choice of name seems like blatant mockery here) that only differs in color choices. Never mind that I can tell Madden’s are both synthetics while Louboutin’s are genuine leather. Madden’s price for the latter? $99.95. Louboutin’s? Closer to $1200.
After all this bashing, it really comes down to one hard fact of fashion: you’re not going to get a decent pair of heels for 99 bucks. These days you’re not going to get a decent pair of anything for 99 bucks, let alone double-stack platform gladiator sandals. Buying vintage shoes is in an entirely different league and in many cases may actually be a better bet than resorting to cheapo knockoffs like Steve Madden’s. And for those who still think Madden is giving them high fashion at for superlow coin, think again. You may notice that among other defects the uppers will probably not conform to your foot or move with it, the bottoms don’t have adequate heel or bridge support and that will probably need to invest in an economy-size pack of blister bandages. You may also notice signs of fading, chafing and general wear showing up way sooner than they would on a more expensive pair. But as that old cliché goes, you get what you pay for, which perhaps most relevantly applies to poseurs like Madden who desperately try to masquerade their crap as designer kicks.
It’s already common knowledge that designer fakes—as in, “Chanel” bags patched together by underage sweatshop laborers in China—are illegal, but how far can a brand go before crossing the line for stealing intellectual property? I know that to some out there I might sound like an elitist snob, but that isn’t my goal. Everyone has a threshold as to what they can afford, and for different reasons. I’m not saying that resorting to bargain buys out of necessity is a crime against fashion. The real crime against fashion that I’m attacking here is poseurism. I’ve been hoodwinked so many times into believing –by sight alone, of course—that Steve Madden’s shoes were some higher-up designer’s “real thing” that I sought to investigate exactly to what degree he’s willing to go in order to keep expanding his multimillion-dollar designer copycat shoe empire. What strikes a nerve with me is that often, Madden isn’t just making a trend or a general idea of a design financially accessible to the masses but actually carbon-copying another designer’s idea with cheaper materials.
Even the most high-end designers constantly play off of trends and even each other; the tartan phenomenon seems to pass from runway to runway each fall, and rock ‘n roll inspiration has run a consistent current through a number of the fall ’09 shows. However, it seems that more often than not, Madden isn’t just running with a trend like most other more affordable brands do, he downright copies it. And not only are many of his shoes shameless imitations, but cheap imitations, and it’s pretty obvious too. Often photos posted on internet shops may be deceiving; lighting and positioning can work wonders for crap materials and shoddy construction (believe me, that’s been proven one too many times with a couple of Target’s GO International collections. It’s not even that they appeared at all luxe on the site, but what might have received a passable grade online draped like my aunt’s old aprons in person). One of Madden’s shoes on the Nordstrom site was such a dead ringer for a Juicy Couture platform sandal with leather flowers down the center strap that I nearly clicked it till I read the fine print. In real life, however, I can spot a fake from the Sears Tower. I love playing those “guess the bargain” games they sometimes have in magazines because I get it right 9.998 times out of 10. Those shoes may appear to be bona fide Weitzmans or Choos or Louboutins to the naked eye, but closer inspection reveals a lack of intricate craftsmanship and detailing in the lookalikes. Never mind that from trial runs I can attest to them being nothing short of murder on your feet. Wondering exactly how many designers Madden is guilty of posing as and how far he’s willing to go with his facsimile footwear, I sucked in my breath and logged onto his website.
When I was a teenager, and a quite stupid one at that, Steve Madden shoes were all the rage. They were on the feet of all the most popular girls in junior high, and at the bar and bat mitzvah parties of my Jewish friends, 9 out of 10 pairs that were lining the dance floor by the end of the night bore that signature white tag. We were young and naïve to the fact that what was on our feet was actually some higher-end designer’s work of art redone in mass-market synthetics. Take, for example, the Stuart Weitzman “Timber”, the black version of which Carrie Underwood famously wore on a live TV performance, and its Madden doppelganger the “ZoeII”. From twenty feet away the inexperienced eye would have trouble telling them apart, save the slight color variation in the heel (Weitzman’s is degrade; Madden’s is monochrome). Both heels, however, are about 4 inches and conical. Both platforms are slightly tapered towards the front. Both have a center strap with straps running perpendicularly across, and both have ankle straps. Now here are the minor adjustments; as opposed to Weitzman, Madden chose to make all the straps buckle straps and place only one instead of two at the top. His center strap is also considerably narrower. But all this is virtually negligible from a couple of car lengths away. It’s only when you zoom into the shots of both shoes that you really begin to see the difference. Even precision lighting can’t camouflage the fact that Madden’s leather is dull without being soft (alright, I know this may sound extreme, but with all that I’ve absorbed on fashion over the years I have trained myself to distinguish things like this). Truly fine leather, Christian Louboutin’s use of which is a good example, has a certain soft shine to it that cheaper incarnations just can’t match. And Madden’s equally dull heels just can’t match the polish and fine grain of Weitzman’s.
Now I see how Madden gets away with it. He’ll tweak some minor details but keep the rest of the design virtually identical to the original so he can’t technically be accused of stealing intellectual property. The main difference between this and higher-end designers bouncing off of each other’s ideas is that in the latter scenario, no one would be able to mistake one model from another if presented with the two side by side, even from a considerable distance. Madden isn’t just being inspired by an aesthetic; he’s cheapifying models that already exist. Another thing I’ve come to notice over several months of following his counterfeiting ways is that he’s likely to work with styles that are a season or two old, so no one can, again, technically attack him for swiping their design right off the runway. Take, for example, the “Mandyy” (what is it with these ghetto monikers?). It’s nearly the mirror image of a Fall ’08 Christian Louboutin platform Mary Jane, but was just released as part of Madden’s summer collection. Now that the season for Louboutin’s model is over, Louboutin himself can’t legally balk. The “Marrvel” is an exact synthetic replica of a Gucci fall ’08 ankle boot, studs and all, only differing in that the original wasn’t a peeptoe. The “Caged” is basically the YSL spring ’09 cage bootie that fashion editors went wild over, save that Madden’s hits lower on the ankle. The “Layyla” is Louboutin’s spring ’09 platform gladiator with a bit of skewing of the straps. There is a fall ’09 patent pump of Louboutin’s that has been Maddenized, but the slight variation in shade and lack of Louboutin’s peeptoe cushion the retail giant from any lawsuits. Same with Louboutin’s spanking new Lady Page, which has been shamelessly redubbed the Madden “Regaal” (even the choice of name seems like blatant mockery here) that only differs in color choices. Never mind that I can tell Madden’s are both synthetics while Louboutin’s are genuine leather. Madden’s price for the latter? $99.95. Louboutin’s? Closer to $1200.
After all this bashing, it really comes down to one hard fact of fashion: you’re not going to get a decent pair of heels for 99 bucks. These days you’re not going to get a decent pair of anything for 99 bucks, let alone double-stack platform gladiator sandals. Buying vintage shoes is in an entirely different league and in many cases may actually be a better bet than resorting to cheapo knockoffs like Steve Madden’s. And for those who still think Madden is giving them high fashion at for superlow coin, think again. You may notice that among other defects the uppers will probably not conform to your foot or move with it, the bottoms don’t have adequate heel or bridge support and that will probably need to invest in an economy-size pack of blister bandages. You may also notice signs of fading, chafing and general wear showing up way sooner than they would on a more expensive pair. But as that old cliché goes, you get what you pay for, which perhaps most relevantly applies to poseurs like Madden who desperately try to masquerade their crap as designer kicks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
