What is with the Gibson Les Paul craze? - Page 4

ibanezking · #46 10-24-2007, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Smith

Yep, a doublecut is still a Les Paul. Check the headstock sheep...

I don't get that sentiment. If you don't like them, that's cool. Don't play them. But to bash people that do, totally stupid and lame...

I love mine. Don't like that it weighs a ton but it sounds like nothing else I have. Does both dirty and clean very well. And sustains for days. And holds it's value, at least mine does. Not too shabby...

Nah..... the double cut is only really a Les Paul in name
As i keep saying - its a Les paul that has been brought upto date with sensible upgrades - Like the PRS........

The Strat sounds like nothing else - clean - but thats not very versatile is it?

The other guitarist in my band actually has a Les Paul and a Strat and swaps over through the set............................................... ...
But i like something that does a bit of both - with out swapping.........

Why live in the fifties when nice people out there have taken the time and effort to improve the things that weren't so great when first designed......?

Max

PS. i'm not slagging the LP players - just bemused as to why, when theres better, more versatile, lighter guitars out there..........

Scott Smith · #47 10-24-2007, 06:44 PM

Ibanezking,
I prefer my Les Pauls with all the wood intact. No weight relief holes for me...

Dag · #48 10-24-2007, 06:50 PM

LP's are just the best when you need THESE chunk and beefy tone. No other guitar nails that, and since heavy bands are now so popular among teenagers you have answer to the question why LP is popular in all those mags.

I personally love em, great tone, sustain for days (if intonated good, with high action and neck pickup near the body, the sustain is uselessly long

)
And when you strike a chord, you feel it, whole guitar resonates so well, you feel the power under your fingers.

Gurj · #49 10-24-2007, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dag

LP's are just the best when you need THESE chunk and beefy tone. No other guitar nails that

I'd have to disagree there. My old LP definately had a very beefy/chunky tone. BUT I was blown away the first time I played my PRS and imho I found it to be a lot more beefy fat tone.

Racerx2k · #50 10-24-2007, 07:11 PM

I started out, 28 years ago, on a Les Paul copy, and hated it, cause I didn't think it looked cool. Years later, I found myself gravitating back to Les Pauls. Until recently, I hadn't had a LP in my stable. I picked up a Burny Les Paul, and it's like coming home. Pauls have their place in music, as do many other guitars. I don't believe in endorsing strictly any one style of guitar, and as a result, try to keep a somewhat diverse stable, at times. My LP sits right next to my RG, most of the time, and they BOTH get a fair share of play.

RG777 · #51 10-25-2007, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibanez249

Les Pauls are gorgeous... but so are super-strats, both in their own ways.

To me an Ibanez is like a brand new Subaru, but a Les Paul is like a nice vintage Rolls Royce

A Les Paul is like an old Cadillac, while an Ibanez is like a Lexus.
Lexus: Japanese, With lots of features and electrical crap
Cadillac: Simple, Big, Heavy, Cool, V8,

DavyH · #52 10-25-2007, 02:52 AM

My Gibsons will be leaving the fold shortly. I (re)started playing on a Les Paul I picked up for a reasonable price, and bought an SG to compensate for some of its shortcomings, viz upper fret access. The SG has, without doubt, the worst nut I have seen in any guitar at any price, and despite being a very good instrument, I've been so put off that I'd rather trade it than fix it - this is a new guitar for god's sake.

I'll miss the LP, which I really did fall in love with at first sight, but Ibanez and Fender necks have put me off the huge chunk of wood on the LP. It simply doesn't suit my hand size at all and, if I don't have to struggle, why should I?

Why do they get so much visibility now? Emo thrives on booming riffs and unbroken voices...... Indie's all played on Teles. There isn't a great deal of room in modern bands for Strats and Superstrats. They'll make a comeback as the lower end of metal gets more airplay, I have no doubts about that.

Analog_Kid · #53 10-25-2007, 04:14 AM

The reasons are multiple but fairly simple, actually. Endorsments factor into it, for sure, but look at what's going on - sonically - in "mainstream" Rock and Hard Rock these days. Ever notice that the general guitar tones across the board are pretty much the same? From Evanescence to Disturbed, and everything in between, you'd be hard-pressed to tell one player from another in the tone department. It's a cookie cutter mentality brought on by studio engineers and producers.

Chunky, over-compressed guitar through a Rectifier amp. That's basically it. The Les Paul is perfect for this kind of thing, right out of the box. And it's consistent, which means that the producer knows exactly what they'll get when they have the players use them. This cuts down on time spent tracking guitars, and that's all these guys care about. Time is money, and the production people get paid to crank out as many acts in a space of time as they can with nearly the same sound... whatever may be in style at the time.

The gear gets pushed on the players when they go to record an album. Then they have to replicate the sound live. So, they start playing the same stuff out. On the flip side, if you're playing in these kind of bands you're not there to be a virtuoso kind of player. You're just the backers for the singer, pretty much. It's a very, very different world than the guitar-centric crowd,(like most of us here) are used to. At that stage of the game, guitars become little more than tools. It's a business and you do what's making you some money at the time.

Personally, I own a Les Paul Special that I just lucked out on. Only paid about $500.00 for it. I use it mostly for recording rhythm tracks,(whenever a song calls for it. Once again, the right tool for the job at hand, whatever it may be) but I have a blast playing it in any capacity. Sometimes it's just nice to get back to the basics and there's nothing more basic than a Paul. I have to say that I agree with the "heavy" statements but I solved that problem by using the same kind of strap on it that I use on my bass; a Planet Waves padded bass strap. Really takes the load off of the shoulder.

As for the one-dimensional tone comments, I might suggest that some of you should go back and listen to the various works of Jimmy Page. Not just Zep but as much else as you can find. There is a plethora of unique tones that he has wrangled from the Paul throughout the decades. What has pushed the Paul into single tone territory has more to do with the Marshall amp than the guitar itself. Great combination but used far too much by too many guys. Same can be said for the modern Paul/Rectifier combination too.

DavyH · #54 10-25-2007, 05:05 AM

^^ Couldn't have said it better. In fact, I didn't.

**elcid** · #55 10-25-2007, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Analog_Kid

As for the one-dimensional tone comments, I might suggest that some of you should go back and listen to the various works of Jimmy Page. Not just Zep but as much else as you can find. There is a plethora of unique tones that he has wrangled from the Paul throughout the decades. What has pushed the Paul into single tone territory has more to do with the Marshall amp than the guitar itself. Great combination but used far too much by too many guys. Same can be said for the modern Paul/Rectifier combination too.

Alot of JPs stuff was recorded with a Tele, but he was known for using just about anything he had.

Dag · #56 10-25-2007, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gurj

I'd have to disagree there. My old LP definately had a very beefy/chunky tone. BUT I was blown away the first time I played my PRS and imho I found it to be a lot more beefy fat tone.

Gurj, use the same string gauge and set it up similiar, I had many LP's and PRS's, both are great, but PRS isn't as fat and in-your-face as LP. I know that this varies from one guitar to another (talking bout the same model) but when you get great LP and great PRS and compare the sound, sorry, but LP wins if you need THAT sound. PRS is a great substitute but that's not LP- sorry.

funkdubious · #57 10-25-2007, 11:15 AM

I havnt read all the posts,but have to say I love LPs.I've had a Studio and a ZW.I love that they weigh a tonne,they feel nice and solid.I don't need a trem as I rarely use one,don't need 24 frets,as I'm rarely up that far.They also sound great,although the active EMG's took some getting used to
I prefer them to Prs aswell.I owned a Custom 22 for a while,and although it looked nice I didn't like it at all.
As far as image goes,for the image consious a LP will win every time.Ibanez rock guitars will date any player to a 80's throw back or 90's nu metal player where as an LP is timeless and pretty much genreless aswell(is that a word?).That's right,you can shred on them,ask Zakk!

courtney2018 · #58 10-25-2007, 11:27 AM

Has anyone played Ibanez's Les Paul look-a-like? I've been considering getting a cheaper Les Paul - around the $500- to $600 mark - but wonder if Ibanez's version has about the same sound, feel, tone, etc. Anybody here got any experience with them?

Inzane · #59 10-25-2007, 11:45 AM

Great discussion going on here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by funkdubious

As far as image goes,for the image consious a LP will win every time. Ibanez rock guitars will date any player to a 80's throw back or 90's nu metal player

Isn't that a sad state of affairs...

sick-boy · #60 10-25-2007, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elcid

Alot of JPs stuff was recorded with a Tele, but he was known for using just about anything he had.

+1
And don't forget about the Dano he used for his slide work. He's also used a Strat, and 12-string electric strat, Pedal Steel, and an EDS-1275. And he's also used a Supro, Vox, and Orange amps for recording.