Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

[blueman335]

Re: Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

I have never owned a Les Paul.

That's going to make a difference. You need some time to get comfortable with one, dial in your amp, and then see what you think.

[JeffB]

Re: Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

I have been back and forth over nearly 30 years with my love/hate with Les Pauls. When you get a truly great one, they are magical. But there are alot of just good (or worse) sounding ones. I have come to prefer the 335 for tone. Clarity is always an issue with Les Pauls for me. Most are just one dimensional and dense sounding. I also find many have a very soft lazy attack,which drives me nuts. I also find they tend to sound better with more aggressive pickups. My current LP classic I chose because it has a very fast attack, and is very very clear. It still needs a bit more aggressive pups than I prefer, but I have got it dialed in pretty well. The best modern Les Paul I have ever heard or played was my old R8 (which was better than some, but not all, original 1950s models I have played) It was truly a once in a lifetime guitar, but I got laid off, and had to sell it. I still daydream about it.

Fret access never bothers me much if its a truly good player.

But I have had a bunch that just never done a thing for me, except for looks. I think at last count, I have owned right at 2 dozen, not including Epiphones. A great strat is still a more elusive beast, but Les Pauls are really tough.

[Johtosotku]

Re: Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

I've been on both sides of the fence.

In the end I've found that LPs are guitars just like every other, there's nothing innately magical in them. That said, they are very good at what they do. One has to own one to find out if they're it, or not. Or in my case, own one multiple times. I think the last one is here to stay.

[hydro]

Re: Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

I have a friend with a LP Studio. It needs a good set up but maybe I will try to log some time on it and see if it sticks. I think this one is chambered, it's a fairly recent one.

[tc]

Re: Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

I don't dig the bridge design because of the neck angle that comes with it.

But man, the way they sound and look is just. Whoa.

[SirJackdeFuzz]

Re: Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

Let me preface this by saying:

it really pains me, because I think the Les Paul is the most beautiful, iconic solidbody electric guitar ever made. But every time I have played one I have been left cold. The single cutaway bothers me, the weight bothers me, the neck (especially up near the body) bothers me, and the tone is so dark, almost remote sounding to me... They just always felt like I was playing a log.

Maybe i never played a really good one, or maybe i just don't get it.

I mostly play SGs and hollowbodies. I have always wanted a Les Paul but to be brutally honest, only because of their looks.

My main guitar idols (except Iommi and Jimi) all played LPs at some point or another. Am I just a mutant? Am I missing a chromosome? WtF?

Looks like we are in the same boat, so to speak, as i feel the same about str@ts.

And i sooo want to have a 'Malmsteen-white' model (without the scalloped neck)
I think they are sexy as hell, but i HATE the feeling of a str@t agains me - sitting & standing.
Maybe someone should make a SOLID BLOCK str@t, like a Tele / Les Paul . . . maybe then i will like it ?

[uOpt]

Re: Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

Let me preface this by saying:

it really pains me, because I think the Les Paul is the most beautiful, iconic solidbody electric guitar ever made. But every time I have played one I have been left cold. The single cutaway bothers me, the weight bothers me, the neck (especially up near the body) bothers me, and the tone is so dark, almost remote sounding to me... They just always felt like I was playing a log.

Maybe i never played a really good one, or maybe i just don't get it.

I mostly play SGs and hollowbodies. I have always wanted a Les Paul but to be brutally honest, only because of their looks.

My main guitar idols (except Iommi and Jimi) all played LPs at some point or another. Am I just a mutant? Am I missing a chromosome? WtF?

In case you don't realize it, you are precisely where Gibson was in 1960. Their solidbody was just impractical and the sound unpopular.

Gibson's problem at the time was they they went overboard with a too thin body, a too fragile neck joint (in addition to the fragile headplate). And the whole thing can be neck-diving when Fenders are not. If they had had just a bit more brain and did the equivalent of a PRS at a time, or a contoured Tele like think with Les Paul scale, we would probably not have this discussion right now.

[uOpt]

Re: Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

Looks like we are in the same boat, so to speak, as i feel the same about str@ts.

And i sooo want to have a 'Malmsteen-white' model (without the scalloped neck)
I think they are sexy as hell, but i HATE the feeling of a str@t agains me - sitting & standing.
Maybe someone should make a SOLID BLOCK str@t, like a Tele / Les Paul . . . maybe then i will like it ?

The body contours are just a bad idea. They put the playing surface of the guitar too close to the body, especially with a low bridge (Fender) a opposed to a TOM on posts on a carved top.

In the bass world this is well known to Stingray players, where old Stingrays and new Stingray Classic models have no contours, and some people like it that way.

Some SR classics can be very heavy. Contour cutting also means weight relief. In a way contours are a convenient excuse for Fender/MusicMan to cut away wood for weight relief reasons, just like Gibson swiss-cheeses.

[SirJackdeFuzz]

Re: Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

In case you don't realize it, you are precisely where Gibson was in 1960. Their solidbody was just impractical and the sound unpopular.

Gibson's problem at the time was they they went overboard with a too thin body, a too fragile neck joint (in addition to the fragile headplate). And the whole thing can be neck-diving when Fenders are not.

If they had had just a bit more brain and did the equivalent of a PRS at a time, or a contoured Tele like think with Les Paul scale, we would probably not have this discussion right now.

Hey uOpt, what do you mean but this ?

Sorry, not following

[That90'sGuy]

Re: Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

I have only one thing to say here...

McCarty


/thread

Except that most Gibbys blow them out of the water tonally. I've been through a half a dozen USA McCarties (no exaggeration) and only one, a black '96, came close to the low mid richness that you'll find with your standard Les Pauls (that particular one was the only one that thumped). I went through a number of pickups in them and the construction just made them sound different. Playability wise, it's no contest IMHO.... the McCarty kills the Les Paul. No "G" string tuning instabilities on any of them and the slightly longer scale gave my large hands more room. The wide fat profile is ridiculously comfortable on top of it. No matter what I put in the PRS, the pickups always sounded clearer than with Les Pauls and while that can be a good thing, the slight muddiness is what makes the Les Paul work as well as it does and saturate on overdriven chords.

Les Pauls are simply not my thing, but I respect them. I think you'd be hard pressed to replace them for some rock applications. There's a girth and a fatness that kills with leads and the low mids sit right with 5th chords. They're a classic for a reason, but the feel, playability and lack of versatility in tone led me to sell my 2000 Les Paul Standard.

As a musician, you need to find your own voice. For some folks the Les Paul is it. I've found myself more drawn to the clarity and versatility of telecasters, Rics, Gretsches, etc. and those are all on the other end of the guitar pool.

[SirJackdeFuzz]

Re: Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

Les Pauls are simply not my thing, but I respect them. I think you'd be hard pressed to replace them for some rock applications. There's a girth and a fatness that kills with leads and the low mids sit right with 5th chords. They're a classic for a reason, but the feel, playability and lack of versatility in tone led me to sell my 2000 Les Paul Standard.

As a musician, you need to find your own voice. For some folks the Les Paul is it. I've found myself more drawn to the clarity and versatility of telecasters, Rics, Gretsches, etc. and those are all on the other end of the guitar pool.

Slightly OT :


. . . but seeing that you mentioned Gretsch.

I LOVE what Chris Cornell can do with a Gretsch




Big Gretsch man.

[Jermo3178]

Re: Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

I've had a 2 Lp's since '06.. I LOVE the looks, a lot of my guitar heroes play them almost exclusively, and they have a b*tchin' sound. Upgraded the silverburst and it made her sound like a beast.. BUT... I have never like playing either. I just couldn't get into them for some reason. And I honestly can't pinpoint any real reason.. Last weekend I let the last of the 2 go.. I do miss seeing her, but that's about it. No real remorse at all.

[JeffB]

Re: Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

Yeah. Done the McCarty, SC, Starla, other PRS thing..dropped many thousands.Totally different food group.

[uOpt]

Re: Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

Yeah the McCarty is a funny thing. Best playing even within the PRSes I owned but sound is just so-so. A Tele-gibbo would probably be better.

Also, Gibson should have moved to screwed on necks.

[vinta9e]

Re: Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

Gibson should have moved to screwed on necks.

and detachable headstocks.