Members bluzkat Posted June 21, 2007 Members Share Posted June 21, 2007 Wasn't the SG billed as the Strat Fighter - I understand the sibling relationship however each guitar LP Tele Strat and SG is it's own inspiration I would like to think Just a little history... The SG started its life as a LesPaul. Les Paul wanted to design a guitar that was 'lighter'. Alot of guitar players had commented about the weight of a LP and the thinner, double cutaway body was what Les Paul came up with. They were actually called LesPauls the first couple years before becoming SGs (Standard Guitar). There was even a 'Mary Ford' model (named after Les' wife, who he performed with). This was comparable to a SG 'special', had P90s for pups. I owned (and played) a couple of these early SGs. There was one (SG special) that I had back in the 70s that I really miss. It was damaged and was never the same after being repaired. Oh well... I'll quit rambling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AMC Posted June 21, 2007 Members Share Posted June 21, 2007 i have an sg and a strat. i prefer the sg to a les paul because it is lighter. i prefer the strat to the tele based on looks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sartana Posted June 21, 2007 Members Share Posted June 21, 2007 Strat first then SG then Tele then LP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EveryMn Posted June 21, 2007 Members Share Posted June 21, 2007 For some reason the SG and Tele are my favorite guitars from a playing standpoint, which is odd because they're pretty much polar opposites. Can't stand Strats though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Saturday Posted June 21, 2007 Author Members Share Posted June 21, 2007 For some reason the SG and Tele are my favorite guitars from a playing standpoint, which is odd because they're pretty much polar opposites. i have a friend that thinks just like you. i think that they complement reaaally well, being so different. i Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members deva_da_man Posted June 21, 2007 Members Share Posted June 21, 2007 I have one of each.... and i do like them all, but go through phases of liking one more than the others. usually it's whatever's been bought most recently. loved the strat (first one bought) then when i got the sg i couldn't play anything else. Then i bought the LP and the other two got neglected. now i've recently gotten a telecaster and the other 3 get minimal play time. it depends on which way you look at it if you say strat:lp then tele:sg that's true from an iconic perspective (like ppl have said already) if you think in order of which came first it's tele:lp then strat:sg. Also the singlecut/doublecut argument works. So really you need a perspective to argue the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BobbaFret Posted June 21, 2007 Members Share Posted June 21, 2007 I prefer Les Pauls and Tele's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EveryMn Posted June 21, 2007 Members Share Posted June 21, 2007 i have a friend that thinks just like you. i think that they complement reaaally well, being so different. i Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 62deluxe Posted June 21, 2007 Members Share Posted June 21, 2007 I have to agree with csm's friend. When Les Paul players (and I'm one, despite my avatar) play Fenders, it's usually a Tele, and vice versa, a lot of Tele player migrate to LPs. Prime examples are Jimmie Page (Tele>LP), Mike Bloomfield (Tele>LP), Roy Buchanan (Tele>LP>Tele), and Jeff Beck (Tele>LP>Strat). Of course, Clapton went LP>SG>Strat. My personal path was 335>SG>335>Tele>Strat>LP>PRS>LP (but I'm looking for another SG LOL:thu: ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LAXTC Posted June 21, 2007 Members Share Posted June 21, 2007 That's funny because I have 2 guitars: a SG and a Tele. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitarNed Posted June 21, 2007 Members Share Posted June 21, 2007 Commonly people that plays strats, when they play gibsons-type guitars, they prefer les pauls, and with teles, they prefer SGs. is this some stupid concept i just imagined or it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Majai Posted June 21, 2007 Members Share Posted June 21, 2007 The telecaster and Les Paul represent opposite histories. The telecaster was designed with the idea of being an affordable easily mass produced guitar. That's the main reason for the bolt on neck. Being of the highest quality was not the idea. The Les Paul was based on Les Paul's vision of the ideal Electric Guitar, modified by Gibson so they could sell one (Less Paul I believe wanted a Squarish shaped quitar made from an even bigger block of wood). Quality was of the utmost importance with the Les Paul. The Strat-O-Caster and the SG also kind of have opposite histories. The Strat was supposed to be an improved version of the Tele with an added pickup and a Tremolo bar. The Strat was supposed to be a higher end guitar then the Tele. The SG was was supposed to be a lesser version of the Les Paul. Basically a weight reduced Les Paul for all the pussies out there that can't hold up a 10 pound Ax! It was believed that the reduced weight would result in a poorer tonal quality. This is pretty much so factual and not just my biased opinion on why Les Pauls are a superior guitar design for anyone who is willing to pay extra cash to get a superior sounding guitar. Strats and Teles are a superior guitar design only in the sense they are less expensive to produce and easier to mass produce. The Single Coil vs. Humbucker argument is an entirely different matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BobbaFret Posted June 21, 2007 Members Share Posted June 21, 2007 I prefer Les Pauls and Tele's Course I like SG's and Strats too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EveryMn Posted June 21, 2007 Members Share Posted June 21, 2007 The telecaster and Les Paul represent opposite histories. The telecaster was designed with the idea of being an affordable easily mass produced guitar. That's the main reason for the bolt on neck. Being of the highest quality was not the idea. The Les Paul was based on Les Paul's vision of the ideal Electric Guitar, modified by Gibson so they could sell one (Less Paul I believe wanted a Squarish shaped quitar made from an even bigger block of wood). Quality was of the utmost importance with the Les Paul.The Strat-O-Caster and the SG also kind of have opposite histories.The Strat was supposed to be an improved version of the Tele with an added pickup and a Tremolo bar. The Strat was supposed to be a higher end guitar then the Tele.The SG was was supposed to be a lesser version of the Les Paul. Basically a weight reduced Les Paul for all the pussies out there that can't hold up a 10 pound Ax! It was believed that the reduced weight would result in a poorer tonal quality.This is pretty much so factual and not just my biased opinion on why Les Pauls are a superior guitar design for anyone who is willing to pay extra cash to get a superior sounding guitar. Strats and Teles are a superior guitar design only in the sense they are less expensive to produce and easier to mass produce.The Single Coil vs. Humbucker argument is an entirely different matter. Of course, figure in that almost nobody likes how the old Les Pauls play while almost everybody loves Strats, and how most SGs sound just as good as most LPs, that arguement quickly turns into bull{censored}. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bluzkat Posted June 21, 2007 Members Share Posted June 21, 2007 actually, les paul didnt designed the SG. he actually didnt liked the design at all, that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Faugernauts Posted June 21, 2007 Members Share Posted June 21, 2007 In terms of balance in someones rig, I think someone would have a tele and a les paul...A tele being twangy and a les paul being thicker....Whereas a strat is thicker and smoother and the SG is thinner and rocking sounding... ..If that made sense... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EveryMn Posted June 21, 2007 Members Share Posted June 21, 2007 In terms of balance in someones rig, I think someone would have a tele and a les paul...A tele being twangy and a les paul being thicker....Whereas a strat is thicker and smoother and the SG is thinner and rocking sounding.....If that made sense... Some SGs do a great thick sound. Go find an SG Classic (or any SG with P-90s) and plug it into a nice Marshall setup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members deva_da_man Posted June 21, 2007 Members Share Posted June 21, 2007 Of course, figure in that almost nobody likes how the old Les Pauls play while almost everybody loves Strats, and how most SGs sound just as good as most LPs, that arguement quickly turns into bull{censored}. sorry but i have to ask.... where did you pull that b/s from? "almost nobody likes how the old Les Pauls play while almost everybody loves Strats"... who is included in this 'nobody'? who is included in this 'everybody'? i like how lp's play (all the ones i've played at least) I find it hard to believe that almost everbody loves strats... not that i dont so you're argument tunrs into bull{censored} ALOT quicker than his, mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jerry_picker Posted June 21, 2007 Members Share Posted June 21, 2007 Let's see: A lespaul is to a strat what an SG is to a tele. The second maker's first guitar is to the the first maker's second guitar just as the second maker's second guitar is to the first maker's first guitar. So, 2.1 : 1.2 :: 2.2 : 1.1 I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jerry_picker Posted June 21, 2007 Members Share Posted June 21, 2007 Let's see: A lespaul is to a strat what an SG is to a tele. The second maker's first guitar is to the the first maker's second guitar just as the second maker's second guitar is to the first maker's first guitar. So, 2.1 : 1.2 :: 2.2 : 1.1 I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.