Jump to content

Is there anything you don't like about Les Pauls ??


Dr. Scottie C

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I dislike everything about LPs that isn't Strat-like. I don't like the 3-on-a-side tuners, I don't like the 24.75" scale length, and I don't like that they don't come with a whammy. And I don't like the way Floyds look on them (and I'm not into Bigsbys @ the moment).

Plus, they're expensive as hell :smiley-angry002:

 

[EDIT] Oh, and I don't like setneck guitars, you can't change out the necks on those guitars.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I love Les Pauls, but there are four things that could be improved...

1.  Mother-of-Toilet-Seat inlays on a $2500+ guitar?!?!  Come on Gibson, if cheap imports can use the real thing, why can't you?

2.  I don't like where the controls are.  It is a far reach to adjust on the fly, and very difficult to do volume swells.

3.  I don't like how they are wired... when in the middle position, you can only adjust the mix so much... if you turn one volume down it acts like a master... weird, and I don't like it.

4.  Fragile neck/headstock.  Other builders have used scarf joints and other means to strengthen this area, why can't Gibson?  Using a thinner allen style truss rod would require less of the wood in that critical area to be removed.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If I had to complain about something on them, it would have to be the upper fret access. Since it's a single cut, it's restricted a bit. That said, I'm able to play up high on them, as are many other players. So I guess it's not much of a complaint. I have two Gibson Les Pauls - a Classic and a Vintage Mahogany (renamed Faded Studio a couple years later) and a Special Jr. I also have an Epiphone Les Paul. I'm a fan.

 

I have been attached to my Les Paul Special Jr for months. It's a flattop LP, which I like. Carved tops are excellent, too though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Gibson makes such a HUGE deal out of an actual bookmatched top that it would seem they hardly ever do it becsuse they CAN'T do it other than accidentally stumbling on it every once in a while. Hence the celebration when it happens, and why they seem content to present guitars without them as if no one can get it right either.

 

Other than that and a stupid headstock/ne cc k join design, or should I say lack of one, they are pretty awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The whole thing except the sustain,

Neck dive,

No cutaway for the ribs,

Ergonomics are clumsy

The strings seem to sit too high off the body,

The volume controls are hopeless for violin technique

And don't even start me on that tacked on pickguard sitting there like a picnic table !

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The strat on the other hand started with the guitarist and worked outward, fits like a glove :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 


DaveAronow wrote:

 

Gibson makes such a HUGE deal out of an actual bookmatched top that it would seem they hardly ever do it becsuse they CAN'T do it other than accidentally stumbling on it every once in a while. Hence the celebration when it happens, and why they seem content to present guitars without them as if no one can get it right either.

 

 

 

Other than that and a stupid headstock/ne cc k join design, or should I say lack of one, they are pretty awesome.

 

I guess I'm puzzled what you are talking about.  I've never seen a LP top that was supposed to be book matched that wasn't.  I think a lot of people don't understand how "bookmatching" works.  Dave, I'm not saying that you don't, because I do respect your knowledge... But for the sake of others who may not understand, book matching a solid carved top is quite different than bookmatching veneer. 

With veneer the thin sheets are sliced and folded apart like two pages in a book... the grain on one is nearly identical to the grain on the other because it is only a saw-width apart.  It is then stretched across the carved top and glued down.

With a solid top you start with slicing a board to yeild two 3/4" bookmatched boards, then you carve away the arch, so now the only part of it where the bookmatching is close is at the highest point, where the bridge is.  At the edges the grain is now 3/4" or more away from it's "matching" side. Of course it isn't going to look exactly the same!

Another thing that confuses a lot of people is the idea that both sides of even veneer should be exactly the same.  It won't.  The wood has depth, particularly figured wood, which means it looks different when viewed from different angles.  With book matching you are seeing the grain on one side from the front, and the other side from the back, so to speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Factory strap buttons are useless as anything other than pre-drilled holes for replacements.

The neck join is terrible and makes upper fret access a PITA. This is something most import guitars do better at the $700 mark. If Gibson can route out half the damned body they can redesign the damned neck join.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 


jpnyc wrote:

 

 

Factory strap buttons are useless as anything other than pre-drilled holes for replacements.

 

The neck join is terrible and makes upper fret access a PITA. This is something most import guitars do better at the $700 mark. If Gibson can route out half the damned body they can redesign the damned neck join.

 

Good points IMO.  Not that I don't agree with some of the other issues mentioned such as the weak headstock area.  Inlays don't bother me, I mean it's cosmetic.  I don't care so much for the kind of nitro they use as the back of a neck can get pretty sticky sometimes.  This is not an issue with Hamer which also uses nitro - course Gibsons don't get Hameritis either so I guess it's a trade-off.  Gibson does seem to have an issue with neck angles as I've seen many with extremely high bridges to compensate.

Still, I'm extremely happy with my 2000 Studio Lite.  It weighs in the seven to eight pound range and it sounds and plays absolutely divine.  Mine came with stock grovers to keep it in tune (another issue for me is tuning stability and the tulip tuners on most).  Somebody mentioned high action but mine and others owned by friends have been pretty spectacular in that dept.

Despite the issues, I really think that Gibson makes a pretty spectacular instrument at most every price-point.  I realize that they're not all divine but I really love everything about mine but the nondescript black finish and gold hardware.  In other words, it's a monster in the tone and playability dept.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


Chordite wrote:

The whole thing except the sustain,

Neck dive,

No cutaway for the ribs,

Ergonomics are clumsy

The strings seem to sit too high off the body,

The volume controls are hopeless for violin technique

And don't even start me on that tacked on pickguard sitting there like a picnic table !

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The strat on the other hand started with the guitarist and worked outward, fits like a glove
:)

This pretty much sums up my opinion, though I'd add:

No forearm cutaway

Often ridiculously heavy

Often poor quality control, especially given the high prices

 

I like the music others have made with LPs, but have no interest in playing them myself.  I've made do with them when necessary, but much prefer a wide variety of alternatives, and don't think I'll ever buy one, with the possible exception of a Jr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Lol. I'm not talking about a less than stellar attempt at bookmatching, and yes, I completely understand how to achieve it. But as you describe it in your defense of why gibson cant get it right, because it is a carved top and a lot of the matching grain is carved away being the reason it doesn't match, is bogus. The part where the join is is the part where tge least amount of wood is removed due to the least amount of carving, so the fact that gidson sucks at it has nothing to do with your excuses on why they suck at it.

 

BUT, this is completely NOT what I am even talking about.

 

I'm talking about gibson not even attempting to book matck and just giving us two completely non matching seperate pieces of wood, probably not even from the same tree.

 

If I am getting a two piece top, I want the grain to match. Not look like the two pieces of wood arent even from the same forest. I know it doesn't bother some people but the fact that so many other guitar manufacturers go out of their way to get it right leads me to believe Gibson is either incompetent at it, of they just simply don't care, or both. None of these scenarios are acceptable to me as excuses, so yeah, ut remains one of the few problems I have with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...