Better for the Blues?

Better for the Blues?

  • Strat

    Votes: 20 48.8%

  • Les Paul

    Votes: 21 51.2%
  • Total voters
    41
M

Moonsorrow

New member
Just between these two guitars,which do you prefer for playin the Blues?

Strat all the way for me.
 
Last edited:
Re: Better for the Blues?

i play alot of blues gigs, im the president of a blues society, run a jam thats been going for 18+ years, have been a judge at local, national and international blues competitions blah blah blah...

playing blues has nothing to do with that guitar you got. you gotta feel it and pour it out. fenders can sound great, so can gibsons, so can beat up old harmonys.
 
Re: Better for the Blues?

Of those two choices, I voted Strat, but I really prefer something semihollow w/ a fat, warm neck pickup. My favorite is my chambered ash Tele with a Pearly Gates/ Jazz hybrid in the neck position.
 
Re: Better for the Blues?

I have hundreds of blues CD's, with lots of Strats, Tele's, LP's, 335's, SG's, etc on them, so obviously all of them work for that genre. However, in those CD's are a number of songs that basically ruined by a shrill, schreechy Strat solo, which is not the case for any other model of guitar. Strats have made more songs unlistenable that any other guitar. In the right hands, Strats can produce wonderful tones, and some of my favorite players use(d) Strats, but they know how to EQ them. There's an art to it. Put an SSS Strat with a top-heavy EQ in the hands of a nitwit, and it can become a source of great annoyance. Matt Schofield gets great tones from his Strat, and is a masterful player; Robert Cray on the other hand, usually sounds atrociously tinny and has some of the clumsiest fingers around. Too many blues players use Strats without a clue how to EQ them; these guy would sound much better with an LP. Use a Strat if you want, but for God's sake, dial the treble down, or you'll clear the room.
 
Re: Better for the Blues?

i actually like robert crays tone, not necessarily on record but live. ive been known to have clumsy fingers so i dont hold that against him.

ive seen plenty of guys with a sg that sounded even screechier than a strat
 
Re: Better for the Blues?

I own good examples of both, and for blues I usually go to the strat. I just feel that with the right EQ (as bluesman mentioned) on the right amp, the different pickup combinations give you a lot to play with, as well as being extremely responsive to my finger picking style. I love my LP, but for blues, I'd have to go strat.
 
Re: Better for the Blues?

srv/trower blues-strat
moore/kossoff blues-les paul

depends on what style of blues you're doing. a texas shuffle, a la "pride and joy", doesn't sound quite right with a les paul, imo. same with something along the lines of "still got the blues". gotta have a lester for that smooth, sustaining toneage. strat would be too, for lack of better term, clanky.
 
Re: Better for the Blues?

"Blues" is a pretty broad term if you ask me. For example, Joe Bonamassa has been known to use not only an LP, but also in the past strats, and even currently sometimes uses a Music Man John Petrucci signature model, and John Petrucci is known as the virtuoso behind Dream Theater's guitar playing, not known as a blues guitarist by any stretch of the imagination.
You can play a mean blues with a super modern super strat in the right sub genre of blues.
And again, in some situations/sub genres of blues, a strat may reign supreme, in others an LP will be better.
 
Re: Better for the Blues?

bonamassa stopped playing strats cause he was tired of being compared to srv. no joke.
 
Re: Better for the Blues?

Some of you guys are wayyyy too serious! :) Just trying to have some fun with this. I have been around here for about 6 years and believe me i have seen alot worse threads than this one. :laughing:
 
Re: Better for the Blues?

blueman335 said:
I have hundreds of blues CD's, with lots of Strats, Tele's, LP's, 335's, SG's, etc on them, so obviously all of them work for that genre. However, in those CD's are a number of songs that basically ruined by a shrill, schreechy Strat solo, which is not the case for any other model of guitar. Strats have made more songs unlistenable that any other guitar. In the right hands, Strats can produce wonderful tones, and some of my favorite players use(d) Strats, but they know how to EQ them. There's an art to it. Put an SSS Strat with a top-heavy EQ in the hands of a nitwit, and it can become a source of great annoyance. Matt Schofield gets great tones from his Strat, and is a masterful player; Robert Cray on the other hand, usually sounds atrociously tinny and has some of the clumsiest fingers around. Too many blues players use Strats without a clue how to EQ them; these guy would sound much better with an LP. Use a Strat if you want, but for God's sake, dial the treble down, or you'll clear the room.
Click to expand...

Where can i buy your records at? :)
 
Last edited:
Re: Better for the Blues?

Funny when I think of the blues ... my mind doesn't naturally go to SRV, Gary Moore, and all the modern blues players. A lot of Moore's stuff, although fantastic writing and playing, felt over produced and too clean for me. Well, I've just never been a big SRV fan.

When it comes to electrified blues players I think more along the lines of Howling Wolf, Muddy Waters, John Lee Hooker, Albert Collins, BB, Hubert Sumlin, Otis Rush, Taj Mahal, Son Seals.

I usually go with Tele's and Hollowbodies (esp. with P90s') for my favourite sounds, way moreso than Strats or LP's.

Resos are really nice if the player knows what they're doing with them.
 
Re: Better for the Blues?

I voted Les Paul because regardless of musical genre I just prefer playing a Les Paul to playing a Strat.

We've been over the pros and cons of these iconic guitars once or twice before:D and I fully appreciate the arguments in favour of the Strat...

It's not that I don't like Strats. It's just that I love my Les Pauls :flowers1:
 
Re: Better for the Blues?

I voted for a Les Paul, but I played blues for about 10 years on Fenders and didn't even come close to touching any of my Gibsons during that period of time. They're just tools, and the feel is different. You have to caress a Gibson, and you have to attack a Fender.
 
Re: Better for the Blues?

Oops I voted strat but meant to vote Les Paul. I accidentally hit my arrow key. Nothing sounds as thick and meaty as a Les Paul.
 
Re: Better for the Blues?

blueman335 said:
I have hundreds of blues CD's, with lots of Strats, Tele's, LP's, 335's, SG's, etc on them, so obviously all of them work for that genre. However, in those CD's are a number of songs that basically ruined by a shrill, schreechy Strat solo, which is not the case for any other model of guitar. Strats have made more songs unlistenable that any other guitar. In the right hands, Strats can produce wonderful tones, and some of my favorite players use(d) Strats, but they know how to EQ them. There's an art to it. Put an SSS Strat with a top-heavy EQ in the hands of a nitwit, and it can become a source of great annoyance. Matt Schofield gets great tones from his Strat, and is a masterful player; Robert Cray on the other hand, usually sounds atrociously tinny and has some of the clumsiest fingers around. Too many blues players use Strats without a clue how to EQ them; these guy would sound much better with an LP. Use a Strat if you want, but for God's sake, dial the treble down, or you'll clear the room.
Click to expand...

We get it..you don't like strats and they don't work for you.
 
Re: Better for the Blues?

Pawn-shop guitar. Cheap, high action, bad intonation (or none at all), warped neck, lots of cheap pickups and switches, ugly body shapes and colours.

Only guitars like that will truly give you the blues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top