Gibson Les Paul bad for beginners

[Burgess]

My first guitar (I was 13yo) was a cheap LP copy and even it was way too heavy for me. The pain was pretty bad after awhile.

 

My next guitar was a Gibson SG. Perfect! Lightweight, great upper fret access, killer tone. That was the guitar I cut my teeth on.

 

Friend of mine had an LP and he let me play it every now and again. I really didn't care for it much back then. It did seem like a lot more work to play and for get about the upper frets. So that was at that level of experience. Cut to 25/30 years later...

 

Love the LPs! Love the weight of them, love the tone, love the look. Truthfully, they are a bit of a challenge to play as they take some adjustment to get comfortable on, however, once you make that adjustment (if you can) they are a dream to play! I've said it a few times here though and might as well say it again, LP's ain't for everyone.

 

So as for the OP, I'd have to agree an LP probably isn't the best choice for a beginner if that beginner is very young. LP's a pretty man sized guitar. If the beginner is an adult the LP should be fine.

[L6Sguy]

 

Originally posted by TheTones +1 To this. Learning guitar is a frustrating experience that doesn't need to be exacerbated by {censored} gear.

 

 

....nor eliminated in favor of catalog/web-page drooling, forum-crawling in an attempt to grasp too much at once, & asking to be egged on to spend forever on minutaie of gear, all the while remaining completely unawares that as one picks nearer the bridge, things get treblier.

 

 

every electric guitar player should start on an $89 MII Squier tele. player can learn how to play, become competent in theory of electric guitar & its electronics, and learn how to make servicable/exceptional everything from top to bottom. replacement parts are the easiest to source in the world, and regardless of repair-related disasters theres nothing that cant be swapped out on a tele in a matter of minutes.

[Gravity]

Originally posted by SLfreak I So I did the most sensible thing, grabbed the demo Squier off the stand and tore it up best as I could through that little junky amp it comes with. Definately useable by a begginer though! Of course I'm no uber hot shot guitarist, but managed to "sell" it nicely to a bunch of the kids there. Very satisfying for me, and of course the parents were happy for the savings, too. Especially my "wish I had one of these to learn on" comment!

 

 

Nice work.

[L6Sguy]

Originally posted by Mr_GoodBomb REPORTED.

 

meedley'd

[dcooper830]

The first year I started playing guitar I played on a Hondo Les Paul that belonged to a friend.

 

I was 13.

 

I had no problems playing it whatsoever.

 

I learned a TON on it.

 

I learned "Stairway", bar chords, major & minor scales, the blues scale, and some Pink Floyd, and Beatles stuff on it.

 

Plus a bunch of other stuff I probably can't remember.

 

I doesn't matter what guitar you learn on. As long as it plays halfway decent, and you are motivated to learn..... you'll be fine.

 

I don't understand the folks around here who are saying "Its best to learn on an acoustic......" or "A tele or strat is better for a beginner than a Les Paul......."

 

I completely disagree.

[Jokoker]

Originally posted by LP50 About that acoustic thing... a lot of people are die hard "if you are a real guitarist you'll learn on an acoustic," blah, blah blah. I have almost no interest in acoustic music (at least not enough to make me go out and buy an acoustic guitar any time soon). IMHO, it costs much more to get into a nicer, easier to play acoustic that sounds good than it does to get into a decent electric that sounds good. Also, I figure it this way: Outside of a few songs, I don't listen to acoustic music. I have no desire to play acoustic music. Why on earth would I start playing guitar on acoustic? If you're into metal, it makes ZERO sense to buy a nylon string classical guitar. Similarly, if you're into classical, don't go buy a Jackson King V. Makes no sense. If you want a Les Paul, get a Les Paul, enjoy every minute of it, and don't look back.

 

Not flaming. How do you know so much about the quality of budget acoustics, if you don't even have the desire to go try some out? One word: Yamaha. People here can back me up on this. No bull{censored} here, even the one I tried at Cosco (of all places) was a decent guitar. For a little more, the Taylor Big Baby is a fantastic deal and I'm sure there's others.

[Tezmond]

I had a really crappy nylon stringed acoustic with fat strings and a really high action...couldnt wait to get rid of the thing, but I have to say it did wonders for strenghtening my fingers, I got rid of that and got a hondo 2 LP and it was a whole new world.

 

I wouldnt blow a couple of grand on a Gibson for a kid to learn on, in case they gave it up,

[Paladin2019]

 

Originally posted by HRM 1) Because it allows you to hear what the instrument is supposed to sound like, right away, before you add a bunch of effects onto it. 2) Because, in general, it IS harder to learn on. When you later go to an electric, it (in theory) oughta be easier. 3) Because you don't need an amp. This saves a touch of money, and also allows you (in my personal experience) to concentrate on acquiring some facility with the instrument without worrying about crap like "my amp sucks" or "my tone is thin". Of course, acoustics have their downside. If you REALLY want to play blazing shred stuff, an acoustic won't quite do. And finding an affordable, playable acoustic is sometimes trickier than finding an electric. In general, though, acoustics are great to learn on. IMHO, of course.

 

 

I take some issues here.

 

1. Amps have a clean channel, and you can play your guitar unplugged anyway.

 

2. Why should starting on the HARDER instrument be good? It's called a learning curve.

 

3. True.

 

I take the view that if you want to play electric guitar, get an electric guitar. If you want to play the violin, you don't go and buy an oboe.

[shred and roll]

Les Pauls aren't that heavy. And young people are pretty strong anyway. And the better the guitar that you start out on the faster the progress. I.e. everyone should have a guitar as good as a Les Paul to start on. And they aren't harsh sounding. With all of that mahogany and medium output pickups, they're pretty smooth sounding.

[datru]

As I read the original post, rockraccoon says he wants to play an LP in the future, not start right out on one. It's an important difference I think, mainly because an absolute beginner might lose interest so why spend the money. After a year or so I think he would know where his interests lie.

 

One other thing: Why does everyone assume that an LP costs "a couple of grand?" The LP Vintage Mahagony is $799, the studio is $999 and used they are cheaper still. It doesn't have to be a new standard or custom shop that we're talking about here.

[bassred]

Wow, I guess Jimmy Page, Slash and many others don't know a good guitar then......

 

Tell your uncle to stick it where the sun don't shine. If you hurt yourself with a heavy axe, your posture needs attention, not your choice of instrument.

 

Try playing bass, most of the choices I had when learning were heavy as hell, and I never once had a sore shoulder/back....

 

My main axe is a Les Paul, I don't know how anyone who has played one can say they are in the least bit 'difficult'. My backup axe is a Les Paul (Epiphone) and it has the slimmest neck I've felt on a LP.

 

I play upright. tell your uncle to play one of those suckers, then he might have some room to complain about difficulties.

 

end rant

[savoldi]

I'm kind of thinking you ought to pay your dues with a crummy guitar for a few years. Tends to weed out the lightweights. And you don't put somebody who's learning to drive behind the wheel of a Ferrari, either. Nowadays people who can barely play own great stuff. That just means how bad you play comes across even better.

[joecool1963]

I think the access to the upper registers argument is a load of wahooie. You are going to be real buisy memorizing the fretboard and stretching your fingers into chord shapes, not playing finger tapping solos up the neck.

 

If a LP shaped guitar is the "thing" for you, and you like the tone better than a strat type guitar, get one. Sounds to me like the "experienced one" is blowing smoke way up you butt...

 

-peace out

[L6Sguy]

 

Originally posted by bassred Wow, I guess Jimmy Page, Slash and many others don't know a good guitar then...... .

 

 

neither of whom started on les pauls. i dont know to whom else you are referring.

 

 

 

next?

[Jkater]

A beginner needs a guitar that is well intonated and well set-up. Shouldn't be too low an action and, as a matter of opinion, without a trem is not a bad thing for a beginner. Les pauls are not the most ergonomic design but I would certainly recommend it someone starting on the instrument.

[surfcat]

I spent my life savings on an LP when I was 14 after playing for 2 years. I mostly still played my Univox Hi Flyer-kind of like a strat, because it was light and comfortable and I didn't have to worry about beating it up. An Epiphone LP is generally lightweight and plays good and doesn't cost a fortune-bingo.

[LP50]

Originally posted by Jokoker Not flaming. How do you know so much about the quality of budget acoustics, if you don't even have the desire to go try some out? One word: Yamaha. People here can back me up on this. No bull{censored} here, even the one I tried at Cosco (of all places) was a decent guitar. For a little more, the Taylor Big Baby is a fantastic deal and I'm sure there's others.

 

No flame/offense taken.

 

I didn't say I've never laid hands on an acoustic. I just don't have any interest in buying one.

 

I've played -many- acoustics through the years in various guitar stores. For what it's worth, there are some acoustics I like, with that Taylor being one of them. It plays really well. I also like some of the Seagull acoustics, and Alvarez. Haven't played a Yamaha. I've played some lower end Fenders that sounded/felt like crap to me. IMHO, based on the guitars I've played in various guitar shops, if you're in the $350 - $400'ish range on acoustics, it's probably worth it to save a little more and jump up a notch and get a nicer one. If I were to buy one today though, it'd be either a Taylor or a Seagull.

[LP50]

 

Originally posted by datru One other thing: Why does everyone assume that an LP costs "a couple of grand?" The LP Vintage Mahagony is $799, the studio is $999 and used they are cheaper still. It doesn't have to be a new standard or custom shop that we're talking about here.

 

 

+1 My Studio was right around 900'ish new when I bought it in the late 90's, and they're still in that general price range.

[fixitboy]

As a beginner and a Les Paul owner I think that the following apply:

1. Set neck vs. bolt on neck. The angle is different. I think my Gibson is easier to play than my MIM Stratocaster. This may not apply to everyone.

2. LP stays in tune a little better (no trem).

3. Weight is insignificant for anyone of normal strength. Buy a wide strap. Contour on the back of the Strat is more comfortable, however.

4. Sustain is much better on LP, I need to be aware of the need to mute the bass strings.

5. When this thing (the Les Paul) comes out of the case it brings a smile to my face that my other guitars don't , not that there's anything wrong with the others, (they still get played) but this thing is a work of art and it makes me want to practice. It may be psychological, but it seems easier to play, just because I know it's a good guitar

 

Bill

 

edit for spelling

[mmcquain]

 

Originally posted by fixitboy As a beginner and a Les Paul owner I think that the following apply: 1. Set neck vs. bolt on neck. The angle is different. I think my Gibson is easier to play than my MIM Stratocaster. This may not apply to everyone. 2. LP stays in tune a little better (no trem). 3. Weight is insignificant for anyone of normal strength. Buy a wide strap. Contour on the back of the Strat is more comfortable, however. 4. Sustain is much better on LP, I need to be aware of the need to mute the base strings. 5. When this thing (the Les Paul) comes out of the case it brings a smile to my face that my other guitars don't , not that there's anything wrong with the others, (they still get played) but this thing is a work of art and it makes me want to practice. It may be psychological, but it seems easier to play, just because I know it's a good guitar

 

 

+1

I'd trust the above "advice" much more than your uncle's! I started with a $75 Les Paul copy from the Montgomery Ward's catalog and then played a loaner 20th Anniversary Les Paul Custom (compliments of my friend/guitar teacher) while saving for a Les Paul Standard. This made up my first 5-6 years of playing. After that it was a sting of other guitars before "coming home" to a Les Paul Custom (my #1 guitar today - never plan to sell it).

 

Bottom line is that learning to play is much more about motivation than a particular guitar. But having a "decent" guitar (i.e., stays in tune, action not so high that it causes problems, etc.) ARE important factors when picking a guitar to learn on (or any other guitar for that matter). So, if a Les Paul is your dream guitar then go for it - you may find it motivates you to practice/play more (and isn't that what it's really all about)

[No Soul]

what a buncha bull{censored}!

 

what the {censored} should bassists start on then?

 

and "rough tone" ? its so smooth and forgiving!

 

You want rough? Play through a tele or strat, which wont let you hide ANY mistake.

 

sounds like either

1) he didnt like Les Pauls

2) he was jealous of a rookie having one

[bassred]

 

Originally posted by L6Sguy neither of whom started on les pauls. i dont know to whom else you are referring. next?

 

 

RIght, lovely attitude. If a guitar is not suitable for beginners because it is hard to play, sounds bad, etc, then it would not be a very good choice for a pro, now would it.

 

 

 

* writes down reminder to write-off anything posted by L6Sguy as he seems to not want to read all the posts in the thread before getting cocky*

 

The original poster was told that the guitar was not suitable for many reasons, all of which are bunk. Whether you start on a beat old Kingston or a Les Paul is up to your budget and desires and both would make a perfectly acceptable guitar, I personally don't care what Page or Slash started out on, they chose to play Les Pauls and there must have been a reason for that. Obviously they could get past the 'rough tone' and apparently overbearing weight of the guitar long enough to play it for countless hours and make it their main choice. Should be good enough to learn on then, shouldn't it?

[Jokoker]

Originally posted by LP50 No flame/offense taken. I didn't say I've never laid hands on an acoustic. I just don't have any interest in buying one. I've played -many- acoustics through the years in various guitar stores. For what it's worth, there are some acoustics I like, with that Taylor being one of them. It plays really well. I also like some of the Seagull acoustics, and Alvarez. Haven't played a Yamaha. I've played some lower end Fenders that sounded/felt like crap to me. IMHO, based on the guitars I've played in various guitar shops, if you're in the $350 - $400'ish range on acoustics, it's probably worth it to save a little more and jump up a notch and get a nicer one. If I were to buy one today though, it'd be either a Taylor or a Seagull.

 

Cool. Sorry about that. Those are 2 excellent brands. If I were to grab another acoustic it would be either a Rainsong (purely because of the {censored}ty weather here), Yamaha, Taylor, or a Seagull. The budget Yamaha I was describing goes for around $195. Excellent beater or recommendation for anyone you know who wants to jump in. I've known about 5 or 6 people who started out with the exact same model and the quality was great throughout.

[gtrdave]

Originally posted by rockraccoon i recently went to see my dads friend who happened to be a pretty good guitarist. after some discussion he told me that beginners should never play with a gibson les paul. its too heavy, hard and the tone is too ruff he said. i was crestfallen. although i never expected to start playing on a gibson les paul or any gibson for that matter, i would surely like to one day as it is my dream guitar. is the gibson les paul really like this?

 

I got a Gibson Les Paul Standard when I was 14 years old. It was my dream guitar, too, and my dad blessed me with making it a reality in my life.

 

At that time I didn't care about the guitar maybe being too heavy or the tone being too rough or whatever other bs that other sad and jaded folks like to attribute to the LP...all I knew was that I wanted to play like Skynyrd and Frampton and Jeff Beck and Al DiMeola and Gary Moore and they all were primarily Les Paul players.

 

Can a Les Paul be heavy? Sure. Can it play differently than other guitars? Well, duh.

Does that matter to me? 26 years later and the answer is still no.

[dcooper830]

Actually if you want to see what Jimmy Page started out on..... check out this video:

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=epXeC40P80o

 

 

Talk about huge and un-wieldy....