Who likes the Gibson Les Paul?

[Gtrman58]

Its been so long that this thread has been started. I know/think I've put in my two cents...already but here goes again. My main stage axe is a 1980 herritage standard that I really love. I would really like to snag a 57 re-issue gold top and/or another cherry burst standard for the right price. You can NEVER have enough LP's hanging around the house!

I am officially on the hunt for one.. or two.....

 

[trobdcso]

I play Les Paul. My Strat sits in a case.

 

[6StringMoFo]

 

[ynot]

All of my electrics are LP's.I use to play strats a looong time ago,but after getting my first LP (70's Pro w/ P90's) there was no turning back.I could never quite get use to playing both live so I ended up selling the remaining strats to fund more LP's .I have 5 now but really only play the two newer ones (a Classic & '99 Custom) lately because I love the tall frets.I have two Standards ('81 &'82) also,one of 'em desperately needs new frets so I'll probably get the tall frets on it too.

 

[eljeffebrown]

Who doesn't?

 

[Adwex]

A Les Paul and a Marshall.....they go together like peanut butter and jelly.

 

[6StringMoFo]

Try a Custom Rachel.

The neck profiles are not 50's huge but the not 60's thin either. Perfect for me and I have small hands. The 60's profile neck lead to hand fatigue in my case.

I really like the Les Pauls. I love their tone. I love the ones with the 60s slim-line necks. I own a Studio with a '59 neck. The neck and I don't get along, but it has a great tone. So I'm looking to replace it with another Les Paul which reminds me I have to call Mark and find out about that one.

 

[Kunnz]

.

 

[Adwex]

LOL.

Yeah, but they sound great.

 

[ynot]

Actually I was looking at white one today (15 April 2010) thinking hmmm….. should I or shouldn’t I, ……… should I….. hmm……scratching my chin, ….hmmm…………………..let me see then.

As soon as I lifted off the hook I said to myself ‘ah f-~k’…... Man how could you practice on this thing all day long’.

IMO, I think that they are more attractive looking than they are to play as when you pick one up you know that you are in for a hard time, period.

They are so perfectly unbalanced and way too heavy and uncomfortably annoying to sit down with too, that’s why I got rid of mine a long time ago.

As soon as I started to play, the thing reminded me of a depressing month of rain and grey skies. Seriously it gave me a mental vision of a sorrowful dead duck that got drop kicked.

The selector switch is located so far away up at the top of the body that the fingers think that they travelling to the North Pole when a pick-up change is needed. I mean why put a switch 90 miles north of the picking area, why?
When there’s a pick-up change during a bar there’s going to be complete balls made of it because of the locality of the selector switch especially if you are finger picking a passage.

The neck is ok until around the 16th fret where the thumb has to extricate the instrument completely to allow the fingers to clumsily struggle on up the fret board to reach the higher registers.

Also when you have to change volume or tone you miss about 2 seconds of the tune you are playing no matter what tempo it’s at. An army general would probably name that manoeuvre Operation Round Up.
The knobs are so slippery and square that when the hand is sweating playing a gig everything becomes a fumbling mess when trying to adjust.

They are also fashion accessory as well, not too far off a woman’s need for an impractical designer handbag that only comes out when she wants to showboat.

No, I don’t like the Gibson Les Paul.

Lol,that's funny...almost all of those things are things I LIKE about LP's:

Yeah they're heavy...they don't flop around like a toy when your playing live.

The pickup selector switch is in the perfect location for swithcing between the two pickups for clean/dirty sounds if you play a non channel switching amp, accessible yet out of the way enough to prevent accidentally changing "channels".

The neck never bothered me much at the higher registers in fact it encourages you to learn multiple fingerings for passages,which in the long run helps you navigate between scale patterns easier no matter where your playing on the neck.

The volume & tone don't bother me either,in fact I can't even play a strat nowdays without constantly turning the volume down on accident because it's so freakin close.I usually use the "top hat" style knobs on my LP's.The "speed knobs" are anything but for speed,I'll give ya that much.

Also,a fashion accessory is a new guitar that you pay three times the price for because it has a "custom" beat up scratched/dinged/worn finish to make it look as if you've played the hell out of it for years already.Fender makes those.

 

[6StringMoFo]

You've highlighted some of the BEST parts of a Les Paul

Actually I was looking at white one today (15 April 2010) thinking hmmm….. should I or shouldn’t I, ……… should I….. hmm……scratching my chin, ….hmmm…………………..let me see then.

As soon as I lifted off the hook I said to myself ‘ah f-~k’…... Man how could you practice on this thing all day long’.

IMO, I think that they are more attractive looking than they are to play as when you pick one up you know that you are in for a hard time, period.

They are so perfectly unbalanced and way too heavy and uncomfortably annoying to sit down with too, that’s why I got rid of mine a long time ago.

As soon as I started to play, the thing reminded me of a depressing month of rain and grey skies. Seriously it gave me a mental vision of a sorrowful dead duck that got drop kicked.

The selector switch is located so far away up at the top of the body that the fingers think that they travelling to the North Pole when a pick-up change is needed. I mean why put a switch 90 miles north of the picking area, why?
When there’s a pick-up change during a bar there’s going to be complete balls made of it because of the locality of the selector switch especially if you are finger picking a passage.

The neck is ok until around the 16th fret where the thumb has to extricate the instrument completely to allow the fingers to clumsily struggle on up the fret board to reach the higher registers.

Also when you have to change volume or tone you miss about 2 seconds of the tune you are playing no matter what tempo it’s at. An army general would probably name that manoeuvre Operation Round Up.
The knobs are so slippery and square that when the hand is sweating playing a gig everything becomes a fumbling mess when trying to adjust.

They are also fashion accessory as well, not too far off a woman’s need for an impractical designer handbag that only comes out when she wants to showboat.

No, I don’t like the Gibson Les Paul.

 

[00jett]

Lol,that's funny...almost all of those things are things I LIKE about LP's:

+1! There is nothing like a big slab of tone wood strapped around your neck for 2 1/2 hours. Sure you feel it when your done, but you also feel how that tone moved you!! Forget this nancy boy 2 pound guitar crap... If you want that play guitar hero!! Nah Im just messing, there are alot of great guitars out there, I just love the way a Lester sounds and feels like quality on my shoulder!

 

[Pinelake]

You've highlighted some of the BEST parts of a Les Paul

I agree. Those are some of the great qualities. I've played a '77 Gold Top since the day I bought it (1977). Even my guitar tech commented about how heavy the wood was in this one. Loved it always. May not be for every one, but I like the rainy day sound and throaty growl.

Indiana

 

[j2112c]

I love my LP as much as the next man and I have to say my Custom is non-chambered, heavy as Riki Lake and after trying out hundreds of them I finally bought a great sounding guitar....

BUT... (you knew that was coming)... When I hear people say the heavier the better, your LP is crap if you do not have a season ticket with your chiropractor it does my head in...

I think we need to move on from Heavy is Better and look at all the aspects that lead to that amazing LP tone.

Let me say it straight out - depth of tone and sustain are not a function of weight.... just because your LP weighs 9lbs rather than 10lbs does not mean tone changes accordingly for more sustain.

There is so much at play in the tone of an LP... I say this because my Parker Koa Fly weighs nothing but has more sustain than my LP and has a more full bass tone... which just struck me as odd as I too went down the heavier is better route.




Wood Choice... grain, density, dryness... luck!
Paint application and depth
Body and neck construction
String gauge, type, angle, action
Bridge material or coatings
Pickup selection!!!
oh yeah and the Player.. I think Page could make any guitar sound 'Custom'.


Note Weight is not in that list.
Note how stupid it would sound to put weight in there!
Ergo 15llb LP is best.
It is is a function of density... one part only (and even then density around your bridge will have a different effect to localised density in the horn of the guitar! Wood being wood it is not homogenous and will vary to a greater or lesser extent across the body)



So I pray for a day we talk of body density as density and not weight. A day when we will finally move the debate on to really think about what gives us great guitar tone.

This is not aimed at anyone in particular, I used the rule heavier the better at one point... but not anymore.

I have built a nice pyre... the kindling is dry all I need now is a flame.... hahaha

 

[cudamax2343]

I love my Les pauls as much as the next guy but WTF was and is Gibson thinking selling a advertized soild body classic style perfect combination of woods and doing this to it.

This is a Gibson Chambered body. Looks more like a 335 Hollowbody to me than a les paul. With Gibson you have to spend over 3 thousand dollars to get a good solid body.
I'm more of a fan of the classic wood combo. Like a solid Mahogany body and neck or a good old pancake body style combo. It's not in its Weight, its in its gurth of a chunk of wood and lots of brands have that at a 1/3 of the price of a Gibson.

 

[Pinelake]

Good points made about the sole value of density. All factors come together in the final tonality. But, I still place a good portion of value in the core structure of the instrument. Electronics, hardware, pups. Amazing photo with the chambered body.

Cheers to all

 

[zslane]

Chambering offers a couple of benefits: lighter overall instrument weight, and increased resonance. If neither of these interest you then a chambered Les Paul is not for you. But Gibson was smart to find a way to lower the weight, given that the availability of light old-growth mahogany is reportedly very scarce and thus very expensive, while potentially improving sonic properties at the same time.

You are, of course, free to stand fast in your loyalty to the old-fashioned notion that "solid body" has but one proper definition, and keep your mind resolutely clamped shut, but you may be missing out on some amazing guitars in the process. *shrug*

 

[TwinACStacks]

Any one Here ever Pick up a 50's Les Paul? Other than sweating Bullets that I had over 300,000 in my hands, the ONE thing I noticed was: It was Extremely LIGHT.

The good Honduras Mahogany that Gibson had privy to way back when WAS light. As time progressed and restrictions and availability became an issue they were using less desireable woods closer to the waterways some was actually submereged and retrieved, but a lot was just Denser wood. As the Root system of the Trees picked up the minerals in suspension in the riverflow and carried it into the actual wood cells, the minerals were deposited within the cell walls. This is Your heavier Mahogany of later origin, Heavy--because half of it was literally Stone.

Sorry for the Ramble, this is the explanation as I understand it, but give me a Light piece of wood anyday.

Wood=resonance (chambered or not) Stone=HeavyAss Guitars

TWIN

 

[j2112c]

Any one Here ever Pick up a 50's Les Paul? Other than sweating Bullets that I had over 300,000 in my hands, the ONE thing I noticed was: It was Extremely LIGHT.

The good Honduras Mahogany that Gibson had privy to way back when WAS light. As time progressed and restrictions and availability became an issue they were using less desireable woods closer to the waterways some was actually submereged and retrieved, but a lot was just Denser wood.

That is interesting about the wood!
Hell I think I would be sweating bullets too... Whaoa... You Tube Moment...!! And He's Dropped It!!


You know guys I think after so many years of guitar manufacture, I would have liked to seen more investment in what makes a good guitar, the top Universities can do this work with funding.

We model almost every construction made by man now, bridges, cars almost every item that has stress built into it - guitars should not be an exception.

Wood could be accepted or rejected on such a basis, wood cut in order to avoid non-optimal densities, reduce waste and get consistently good results.

Personally, I do not need Gibson to make a Robot LP for me - I can tune myself and a good guitar well executed seems to hold tuning despite mass battering!

No, I would like a 'consistent' LP that is the area Gibson need to work on with the Godly LP.


By that I mean when I tested out LP's before settling on mine... the differences were immense... one LP Standard sounded so flat and two or three just did not stay in tune with a single one and a half tone bend..

I know every guitar sounds different... but the LP's had such variation in tone and importantly neck stability!
Who knows where the wood is coming from for such variation... Maybe the FBI can tell me!!




Sorry.. that is me on my soap box twice in one thread.. it only happens twice a year... I have to unsubscribe from this thread... I did not know I felt so passionately about the old wooden bedpan.

Sorry for the ranting... I am going for a cold shower for penance!
See you later, I am back off to the Parker Fly Thread!

 

[custom53]

Love mine...