My very late 2 cents on 'clomage'.
Right, I'm severely late to the party, but last couple of weeks was a mayhem at work, so I didn't have much time to follow WC closely.
Now, if you somehow missed the deal like me, go read the posts of @Deeperblue @tonmed and @Mr.Dee.Bater posts, and check out the super cool Bulova Spinnaker highlighted by @Aurelian
Now, lets talk about references in art. My art form of choice is music, so we gonna talk about sampling.
Whether you like it or not, sampling is essential technique in current music production. It usually associates with hip-hop or electronic music, where sampling might be the key part of songwriting, but it's really used everywhere from replicating the realistic sound of orchestra for movies scores, to using sample-based drum kits in modern metal, funk or pop music. Most of the songs you hear on a daily basis is made using samples in one form or another. But of course we have an age old discussion "is sampling ethical?"
When it comes to using packs of short pieces of audio, like a drum hit or synth chord - the answer is simple. If you use legit royalty free sounds, or you bought the pack from an author - you are free to do whatever you want with it. But when we talk about "flipping" whole songs, the stuff becomes kinda complicated.
Now, most major labels will tell you that using their songs to make your own is a copyright violation and a cause to legal action. Unless, you are willing to give up a share of the royalties which is beneficial for said label, in that case - you are free to do whatever. Which is pretty logical business point of view. But it has nothing to do with art.
Art is striving on references and copying. Anyone who's been involved with a creative work can agree that life gets much more simple and results get much better when you start to use references in your work. Designers will put boards of inspiring images to boost the creative energy. Musicians create playlists of favourite bands before starting an album. Mixing engineers will compare your song to the songs in your genre bracket to make sure that your product is capable of competition.
And I can tell you, every time I hear "I don't use reference, bro, I don't want to be like everybody else" from a client I already know that I'm gonna have the worst pain in the butt mixing their project.
In current cultural context, reference is the king. You can see it very clear in a movies. Directors not only doing homages of their favourite movies, they also make references to the process of making this movie. Meta-modern in its finest.
But the question is still relevant, how do you distinguish 'homage' from straight up rip-off.
Going back to sampling, it's really comes down to the skill of the producer and a context they creating with a sample. Sampling isn't an easy cheat code to make a track, mastering sampler could take the same time and effort as mastering guitar or piano. Legal limitations forced early sampling connoisseurs to flip the sample to the point where you can't recognise the original song, and it's been no time when musicians start to compete against each other in who can do this better, moving the skill bar higher and higher. And of course technical ability eventually translated into musical criteria (just like shredding killed musicality in metal music).
The second part of this equation is a context. The idea of sampling is to create something new, using something that already exists. If your track is too similar to the original, it's gonna come off as 'unauthentic' and 'lazy'.
It's really about making something new, bringing additional artistic value with your product. And therefore the intent of the artist matters a lot. If you want to create your own personal product of artistic expression - well, than you have your 'homages' 'references' and 'inspirations'. But if you as an artist want to just make some money, parasitising on existing products - well, there you have your 'rip-offs' and 'plagiarism'.
So yeah, answering the question, sampling is ethical, if you want to create something new and personal with it (well, it's been kinda obvious isn't it?).
Now, is Chinese 'clomage' watches a form of personal artistic expression? I think not and you can't prove me otherwise.
@tonmed mentioned guitar shapes. The thing with guitars, that engineers took familiar shapes of classic electric guitars and made it better by boosting the ergonomics and introducing anatomic cuts, and also the finishing techniques of every brand is different, the design language of every brand is different, and the sound of different 'Strats' could be really-really different. So while the brands use the same basic shapes, you can really visually distinguish one from another. And the only reason why Gibson decided to ban using their shapes is because other manufacturers made way better 'Les Pauls' than a Gibson. No wonder sales went down. Ask guitar forum which Gibson you should buy and watch how many people will advise you to get a PRS instead lmao.
I think guitar manufacturers really succeeded in taking classic shapes and make them their own. While watch companies like Pagani Design don't bring the personality to the table.
But listen, I'm not telling anyone which watch to wear. You like Paganies - be my guest. But please, for the sake of God, stop posting comments full of 'reverse snobbery' on YouTube.
Musician, sound engineer, software developer and aspiring watch collector. Fan of vintage watches and old-fashioned clothing. Chef of faux patina.
I love homage watches.
They are just as ugly as the originals, but only for a fraction of the price.
Listening to amazing classic bands and music by the originals members is always the best but sometimes you discover a very good cover band that will ad up to a song. I think the best about homage (and let's face it almost every watches no matter the brand has been influenced by others and that's perfectly fine) is that there are watches for every budget and even some homages (not talking about clones that are exactly the same) can offer some interesting pieces that are unpretentious and fun!
I love how you looked at it from the angle of music, I hadn't thought about it like that before. 🍻
Listening to amazing classic bands and music by the originals members is always the best but sometimes you discover a very good cover band that will ad up to a song. I think the best about homage (and let's face it almost every watches no matter the brand has been influenced by others and that's perfectly fine) is that there are watches for every budget and even some homages (not talking about clones that are exactly the same) can offer some interesting pieces that are unpretentious and fun!
yeah, absolutely.)
I love the story of the band Trivium, their frontman was so inspired by Metallica, that he wanted to play exactly like James, but at the end, they are not even in the same genre, but you can obviously hear the influence)
Now, both Metallica and Trivium are rather mainstream and both have very mainstream approach to sound and songwriting, and we can trace their common musical roots with pop music. It's really about how musicians morphed the existing art forms into something new and exciting.
the music industry suffers copyright infringements almost as much as the watch industry. the difference is in patent law which expires at 25 years. I can legally clone a 25 year old watch but not the logo.
TLDR
the music industry suffers copyright infringements almost as much as the watch industry. the difference is in patent law which expires at 25 years. I can legally clone a 25 year old watch but not the logo.
you can legally use music after 70 years from the death of the author. Or 95 years after publication. Or 120 years after creation...
I'm not talking about the legal aspect here tho)
I see nothing wrong with a copy of a very expensive watch for less....unless the logo is copied as well, then it is a fake - and that's just wrong in my book.
I used to own a Rolex Submariner and an original Explorer II 1655. The prices got STUPID! I sold 'em. I now have a Steinhart OLKO Special Edition Ocean GMT that reminds me of my old Explorer...and a Steiny Ocean 1 Ceramic that reminds me of my Sub. I'm perfectly happy with their quality, durability and accuracy. I don't miss the Rolex watches one bit. And my bank account is much happier.
If a music band is charging $15,000 per ticket - and a good cover band is charging $500, I'd go see the cover band. I truly believe Rolex has priced itself out of the reach of the vast majority of folks. Many can't spend that kind of money. Many others just won't. When I bought my Subbie and Explorer, they were maybe twice the price of other very good watches. Now they are 30 times the price! I won't do that when I can get the same satisfaction from a Steinhart.
Legit question, which is the original? I'm more familiar with the Alpinist and prefer it between these two. The Oris just looks boring. The white and green remind me of a chalkboard at school.
I see nothing wrong with a copy of a very expensive watch for less....unless the logo is copied as well, then it is a fake - and that's just wrong in my book.
I used to own a Rolex Submariner and an original Explorer II 1655. The prices got STUPID! I sold 'em. I now have a Steinhart OLKO Special Edition Ocean GMT that reminds me of my old Explorer...and a Steiny Ocean 1 Ceramic that reminds me of my Sub. I'm perfectly happy with their quality, durability and accuracy. I don't miss the Rolex watches one bit. And my bank account is much happier.
If a music band is charging $15,000 per ticket - and a good cover band is charging $500, I'd go see the cover band. I truly believe Rolex has priced itself out of the reach of the vast majority of folks. Many can't spend that kind of money. Many others just won't. When I bought my Subbie and Explorer, they were maybe twice the price of other very good watches. Now they are 30 times the price! I won't do that when I can get the same satisfaction from a Steinhart.
Well, if you feel genuinely content with those watches, who am I to tell you what to wear.
But I think one should be really aware of their intentions, because if the only reason why someone buys a homage is because they wanted a Rolex - well, they might be never content with what they have. And it's not the best feeling.
I know that I would never be content with a clomage watch. Steinhart interpretation of a Rolex isn't the same thing as Rolex watch. It might look the same, but it's really not the same. Just like seeing a band isn't the same experience as going on tribute show.
Because it's not only about the songs, it's also about the band's story, members and even branding. Rationally, if cover band plays exactly like the original band, and if their vocals are dead close to the original - it's not the same, but good enough (tho the behaviour of musicians, the way how they approach the show, the energy, the play style, the sound is gonna be different), but we're not making decisions completely rationally as humans.
Well, if you feel genuinely content with those watches, who am I to tell you what to wear.
But I think one should be really aware of their intentions, because if the only reason why someone buys a homage is because they wanted a Rolex - well, they might be never content with what they have. And it's not the best feeling.
I know that I would never be content with a clomage watch. Steinhart interpretation of a Rolex isn't the same thing as Rolex watch. It might look the same, but it's really not the same. Just like seeing a band isn't the same experience as going on tribute show.
Because it's not only about the songs, it's also about the band's story, members and even branding. Rationally, if cover band plays exactly like the original band, and if their vocals are dead close to the original - it's not the same, but good enough (tho the behaviour of musicians, the way how they approach the show, the energy, the play style, the sound is gonna be different), but we're not making decisions completely rationally as humans.
Somewhat agree....until the tikt price difference is $15,000 vs $500. My rolex watches gave me no more pleasure than my Steinharts do. But yes - that's me. Some need the snob appeal.
As for this statement..."Steinhart interpretation of a Rolex isn't the same thing as Rolex watch." You are right. My Steinharts are vastly better watches than my 1970s and 1980s era Rolex watches. 👍😎
I get your analogy with sampling. However I think you're focused on the whole artistic or heritage aspect of a watch.
The points I was going for were more so tied with what constitutes public IP (not legally, but public opinion) and what some consider a "base" when it comes to design. Also in guitar land and watch land alike copies are not exactly "exact". This is totally cool in guitar world:
In fact PRS's model got high praise for it's improved design. You're right in the sense Gibson quality was going downhill, but so was Fender for a while. Yet one still thrived and one didn't. Rolex was not the super spec watch in the 50's it is now either.
In your analogy you reference the artist intentions as it pertains to using samples for self-expression. But I think you can consider sometimes more practical tasks are at hand, like say writing music for a TV ad. In that case you might go with a generic pentatonic blues progression or twinkle twinkle little star (both public property) and get the job done. At what point is the sub design twinkle twinkle little star? I'm not sure tbh, just postulating.
Similarly, I believe alot of people are satisfied with copies or homages because they have a more practical, less romantic, POV when it comes to getting a watch. Assuming they live a life of disillusionment is assuming the art or heritage matters to them. I know some find it hard to imagine, but those things dont matter to some. I think this is where alot of folks look at it from, just having a cool watch, not necessarily the original cool watch.
I'll end by saying I definitely don't feel anyone has been snobby about the whole subject, at least not to me. Most people are very clear they respect everyones choice. Some use stronger words than others, but thats just everyone voicing their opinions.
I get your analogy with sampling. However I think you're focused on the whole artistic or heritage aspect of a watch.
The points I was going for were more so tied with what constitutes public IP (not legally, but public opinion) and what some consider a "base" when it comes to design. Also in guitar land and watch land alike copies are not exactly "exact". This is totally cool in guitar world:
In fact PRS's model got high praise for it's improved design. You're right in the sense Gibson quality was going downhill, but so was Fender for a while. Yet one still thrived and one didn't. Rolex was not the super spec watch in the 50's it is now either.
In your analogy you reference the artist intentions as it pertains to using samples for self-expression. But I think you can consider sometimes more practical tasks are at hand, like say writing music for a TV ad. In that case you might go with a generic pentatonic blues progression or twinkle twinkle little star (both public property) and get the job done. At what point is the sub design twinkle twinkle little star? I'm not sure tbh, just postulating.
Similarly, I believe alot of people are satisfied with copies or homages because they have a more practical, less romantic, POV when it comes to getting a watch. Assuming they live a life of disillusionment is assuming the art or heritage matters to them. I know some find it hard to imagine, but those things dont matter to some. I think this is where alot of folks look at it from, just having a cool watch, not necessarily the original cool watch.
I'll end by saying I definitely don't feel anyone has been snobby about the whole subject, at least not to me. Most people are very clear they respect everyones choice. Some use stronger words than others, but thats just everyone voicing their opinions.
yeah, I was solely thinking from artistic romantic standpoint. After all that's how I see watch collecting in general.
It's hard to judge art objectively and analysing artistic methods is one way (more of a compromise really) to put it. In experimental music, which can easily turned to chaos, the intention of an artist is a huge part of musical criteria. It's like 'playing bad'. When you are bad at guitar and you are playing bad we call it 'needs more practice'. But when you very good at guitar, and you are 'playing bad' we call it 'playing with feeling'. And sometimes famous guitarist get away with being mediocre at guitar, because we assume that if they are so popular it means they know their stuff and everything they do, they are doing on purpose.
And I 100% understand that for other people everything I said is absolutely irrelevant and all they want is to listen to a nice tune on a background. Take a song 'Ganz Graf' by Autechre. While I absolutely love this song and consider it classic and genre-defining, 99% of people I've showed it to says that it's not even music, but a random noisy mess.
I just wanted to show how I reflect on a subject, from my personal point of view)
P.S. It's also the attitude of Gibson man. I remember at some point we were like 'come on, those dudes are now parasitising on their own heritage, trying to squeeze the most money from fans'. And I think that this was a window of opportunity to other builders to really shine. Fender somehow figured the approach to new generation of players and it helped them big time. And this Silver Sky is an absolute killer of a guitar. It has a lot of similarities with Fender Strat, but it's also distinctively PRS. I bet they were struggling to not put the flame maple top on it lmao.
yeah, I was solely thinking from artistic romantic standpoint. After all that's how I see watch collecting in general.
It's hard to judge art objectively and analysing artistic methods is one way (more of a compromise really) to put it. In experimental music, which can easily turned to chaos, the intention of an artist is a huge part of musical criteria. It's like 'playing bad'. When you are bad at guitar and you are playing bad we call it 'needs more practice'. But when you very good at guitar, and you are 'playing bad' we call it 'playing with feeling'. And sometimes famous guitarist get away with being mediocre at guitar, because we assume that if they are so popular it means they know their stuff and everything they do, they are doing on purpose.
And I 100% understand that for other people everything I said is absolutely irrelevant and all they want is to listen to a nice tune on a background. Take a song 'Ganz Graf' by Autechre. While I absolutely love this song and consider it classic and genre-defining, 99% of people I've showed it to says that it's not even music, but a random noisy mess.
I just wanted to show how I reflect on a subject, from my personal point of view)
P.S. It's also the attitude of Gibson man. I remember at some point we were like 'come on, those dudes are now parasitising on their own heritage, trying to squeeze the most money from fans'. And I think that this was a window of opportunity to other builders to really shine. Fender somehow figured the approach to new generation of players and it helped them big time. And this Silver Sky is an absolute killer of a guitar. It has a lot of similarities with Fender Strat, but it's also distinctively PRS. I bet they were struggling to not put the flame maple top on it lmao.
Oh totally, Gibson screwed up big with their "play authentic" campaign. Mark Agnesi also personally stepped in that mess way too easily. They alienated alot of players. I think the only thing keeping them in business at this point is the "blues lawyer" crowd haha.
100% agreed. I think us creatives look at this from a distinct lens, and I will never understand the draw of clomages/fakes/replicas (yes, I put them all in the same category) — there’s just no validating them, not from an ethical, ‘creative’, or cost perspective…and like you I dislike that the factories are intentionally trying to redefine and misappropriate the word ‘homage’. I had posted this in my response to another thread, there’s a clear distinction between a homage and a clomage/knock-off, using one of the few Steinharts that gets it right, a beautiful homage to the Batman. It takes more than a logo swap or dial color change, clomages (just like replicas) are just cheap cash-ins on the design, development, and success of other brands; and I’ve also argued that fans of these factories are actually fans of the original brands they ape. These factories capitalize on being able to provide a means of owning a non-AAA replica without the stigma of owning a replica, simply because because the logo is different.