Mark Cearlock
New member
Re: Here we go again...Sg vs telecaster
Looks like tele wins....good job, Leo!
Looks like tele wins....good job, Leo!
Here we go again...Sg vs telecaster
- Thread starter Mark Cearlock
- Start date
That90'sGuy
DyzaBoyzologist
Re: Here we go again...Sg vs telecaster
Tele hands down. My objective here isn't to tick people off, but SGs just aren't Gibsons finest hour. They may be warmer than a Tele, but they're thinner sounding than Les Pauls and Explorers (haven't put them up against the Vs). They may have some really nice curves and upper fret access, but that access comes at the expense of stability. The Tele may not be the prettiest guitar out there, but it's rock solid. You don't have to worry about accidentally putting pressure on the guitar anywhere and having it bend a note up. I'm not pulling all of this out of my arse either as I have owned a custom shop SG Custom before. Absolutely the prettiest guitar I've ever owned, but the tone and playability were pretty subpar.
Tele hands down. My objective here isn't to tick people off, but SGs just aren't Gibsons finest hour. They may be warmer than a Tele, but they're thinner sounding than Les Pauls and Explorers (haven't put them up against the Vs). They may have some really nice curves and upper fret access, but that access comes at the expense of stability. The Tele may not be the prettiest guitar out there, but it's rock solid. You don't have to worry about accidentally putting pressure on the guitar anywhere and having it bend a note up. I'm not pulling all of this out of my arse either as I have owned a custom shop SG Custom before. Absolutely the prettiest guitar I've ever owned, but the tone and playability were pretty subpar.
arellanon
New member
Re: Here we go again...Sg vs telecaster
I chose Tele because:
1. I have a Tele
2. I enjoy my Tele
3. I am very fond of the Tele and Strat
4. I never liked ANY of Gibson's guitar models (looks-wise)
5. I feel the SG, LP, 335, Explorer, and V very odd when playing them
I'm not too partial towards Fender since I can't stand the Cyclone, Jaguar, and all those other weird models. But Gibson has absolutely done nothing to attract me as a guitar player. However, I'm not totally knocking Gibson out; I LOVE the way the LP and 335 sound.
I totally respect Gibson; I just don't play its models.
: private:: private:: private:: private:
I chose Tele because:
1. I have a Tele
2. I enjoy my Tele
3. I am very fond of the Tele and Strat
4. I never liked ANY of Gibson's guitar models (looks-wise)
5. I feel the SG, LP, 335, Explorer, and V very odd when playing them
I'm not too partial towards Fender since I can't stand the Cyclone, Jaguar, and all those other weird models. But Gibson has absolutely done nothing to attract me as a guitar player. However, I'm not totally knocking Gibson out; I LOVE the way the LP and 335 sound.
I totally respect Gibson; I just don't play its models.
: private:: private:: private:: private:
Pink Unicorn Horsey
Megä Pöny Rÿdr
marvar
New member
Re: Here we go again...Sg vs telecaster
Isn't this kinda like comparing apples to oranges?
Both are good at what they do, but I wouldn't use an SG when the tele tone is called for, and vice verse-
BTW, I don't get on with SG's , I have a tele, but as with all my guitars, it is another tool in my box.
Isn't this kinda like comparing apples to oranges?
Both are good at what they do, but I wouldn't use an SG when the tele tone is called for, and vice verse-
BTW, I don't get on with SG's , I have a tele, but as with all my guitars, it is another tool in my box.
blueman335
Mojo's Minions
Re: Here we go again...Sg vs telecaster
It's what you're used to. Most of my guitars are 335's, SG's, & LP's. They're all very comfortable, sound great, and have beautiful finishes (many with flame maple tops). That's what I've gotten used to: HB's & P-90's in mahogany. It's what I believe that electric guitars are supposed to look like & sound like. I don't like the looks, feel, or sound of Fenders, at least as far as me owning one. Two very different camps of guitar designs: some guys like both, other guys (like you & me) are solidly on one side & are not adaptable to the other. Granted, my V is a strange guitar to hold, but I'd play that all day rather than a Strat or Tele.
It's what you're used to. Most of my guitars are 335's, SG's, & LP's. They're all very comfortable, sound great, and have beautiful finishes (many with flame maple tops). That's what I've gotten used to: HB's & P-90's in mahogany. It's what I believe that electric guitars are supposed to look like & sound like. I don't like the looks, feel, or sound of Fenders, at least as far as me owning one. Two very different camps of guitar designs: some guys like both, other guys (like you & me) are solidly on one side & are not adaptable to the other. Granted, my V is a strange guitar to hold, but I'd play that all day rather than a Strat or Tele.
blueman335
Mojo's Minions
Re: Here we go again...Sg vs telecaster
From sources inside Gibson, Lester had almost nothing to do with the LP design, except for the first tailpiece (that was abandoned in two years) and the gold color, (which was considerd to be holding back it's popularity, and that led to the sunburst models being introduced in 1958). Les really didn't have much involvement with the design, and the two things he contributed were gone within a few years. In 1952, he basically endorsed a guitar that had already been developed. He probably had just slightly more input into the LP, than the SG. Lester liked the traditional looking LP, and obviously thought the SG was too radical a deviation. At the time the SG came out, Lester was going thru a divorce (big scandal back then) and Gibson was ending his endorsement contract. Both parties wanted the contract to end.
The SG improved on a couple of the LP's weak points: the weight was too much for some players and the neck access was limited. Had they given the SG a little thicker body (or made an archtop version), it would have had a tone closer to a LP, and people might have a different view of things today. Regardless, it's sales were higher than the LP's had been. In hindsight, Gibson should have kept both the LP & SG thru the 1960's, and not gotten side-tracked with the Firebird.
The fact remains, the SG has been in continuous production for nearly 50 years, with healthy sales throughout, proof of the validity of the design. Had Gibson made a special line of SG's 25 years ago for hard rock & metal (HSS and HSH with P-90's, a 5-way, and a Floyd) they would have given serious competition to the emerging Super Strat, and guitar stores would look a little different today. Lets face it, the Strat was "Gibsonized" with a HB or two, and without that, traditional SSS Strats would never have reached the popularity of the Super Strat. Gibson created one of the world's best & most successful designs with the SG, but at times didn't know what to do with it. They missed opportunities to adapt it to changes in music genres, and that has impacted how many people look at. Both the Strat & SG are great platforms for modifications. Jackson, Charvel, Ibanez, and others modernized the Strat and drove it's success. Had someone championed the SG in the same way, it too would be synonomous with metal. Gibson was caught napping (again) and the market drifted towards the Super Strat. No one updated the SG. Our opinions have been shaped by what has, or hasn't, been done with these two designs by the big guitar manufacturers, and the countless images & impressions we've seen over the last 25 years. No one's coming into this unbiased.
From sources inside Gibson, Lester had almost nothing to do with the LP design, except for the first tailpiece (that was abandoned in two years) and the gold color, (which was considerd to be holding back it's popularity, and that led to the sunburst models being introduced in 1958). Les really didn't have much involvement with the design, and the two things he contributed were gone within a few years. In 1952, he basically endorsed a guitar that had already been developed. He probably had just slightly more input into the LP, than the SG. Lester liked the traditional looking LP, and obviously thought the SG was too radical a deviation. At the time the SG came out, Lester was going thru a divorce (big scandal back then) and Gibson was ending his endorsement contract. Both parties wanted the contract to end.
The SG improved on a couple of the LP's weak points: the weight was too much for some players and the neck access was limited. Had they given the SG a little thicker body (or made an archtop version), it would have had a tone closer to a LP, and people might have a different view of things today. Regardless, it's sales were higher than the LP's had been. In hindsight, Gibson should have kept both the LP & SG thru the 1960's, and not gotten side-tracked with the Firebird.
The fact remains, the SG has been in continuous production for nearly 50 years, with healthy sales throughout, proof of the validity of the design. Had Gibson made a special line of SG's 25 years ago for hard rock & metal (HSS and HSH with P-90's, a 5-way, and a Floyd) they would have given serious competition to the emerging Super Strat, and guitar stores would look a little different today. Lets face it, the Strat was "Gibsonized" with a HB or two, and without that, traditional SSS Strats would never have reached the popularity of the Super Strat. Gibson created one of the world's best & most successful designs with the SG, but at times didn't know what to do with it. They missed opportunities to adapt it to changes in music genres, and that has impacted how many people look at. Both the Strat & SG are great platforms for modifications. Jackson, Charvel, Ibanez, and others modernized the Strat and drove it's success. Had someone championed the SG in the same way, it too would be synonomous with metal. Gibson was caught napping (again) and the market drifted towards the Super Strat. No one updated the SG. Our opinions have been shaped by what has, or hasn't, been done with these two designs by the big guitar manufacturers, and the countless images & impressions we've seen over the last 25 years. No one's coming into this unbiased.
uOpt
Something Cool
Re: Here we go again...Sg vs telecaster
Les Paul (the man) also moved on to low-impedance pickups with statevariables filters to freely pick the resonance frequency.
Most people here don't agree with that move and think that the increase in variety from these constructions is not worth the loss of character in tone.
The SG should still have gotten something that allows the strap button and the low body indentation to be more to the left. That would have fixed the head heavyness and it would place the frets where you expect them after playing "normal" guitars.
Les Paul (the man) also moved on to low-impedance pickups with statevariables filters to freely pick the resonance frequency.
Most people here don't agree with that move and think that the increase in variety from these constructions is not worth the loss of character in tone.
The SG should still have gotten something that allows the strap button and the low body indentation to be more to the left. That would have fixed the head heavyness and it would place the frets where you expect them after playing "normal" guitars.
lex666
New member
Re: Here we go again...Sg vs telecaster
+1
Tele's tone = twang
SG's tone = BALLSY :approve:
+1
Tele's tone = twang
SG's tone = BALLSY :approve:
arellanon
New member
Re: Here we go again...Sg vs telecaster
I totally agree blues; I just can't get used to the Gibson models. Ironically, I learned how to play on a Les Paul, so I have somewhat of a very small hunk of love for 'em! : private::cool2:
I totally agree blues; I just can't get used to the Gibson models. Ironically, I learned how to play on a Les Paul, so I have somewhat of a very small hunk of love for 'em! : private::cool2:
blueman335
Mojo's Minions
Re: Here we go again...Sg vs telecaster
+1. Muscle, warmth, and bite...that's an SG. P-90's or HB's, they do it naturally. There's a reason you don't see guys with cowboy hats and rhinestone shirts "chicken pickin'" on an SG.
The comment: "I wouldn't use an SG when a Tele tone is called for"; outside of country, when is a Tele tone called for? I'm racking my brains. So far I've made it well into middle age without once seeing the need for a Tele tone.
+1. Muscle, warmth, and bite...that's an SG. P-90's or HB's, they do it naturally. There's a reason you don't see guys with cowboy hats and rhinestone shirts "chicken pickin'" on an SG.
The comment: "I wouldn't use an SG when a Tele tone is called for"; outside of country, when is a Tele tone called for? I'm racking my brains. So far I've made it well into middle age without once seeing the need for a Tele tone.
lex666
New member
Re: Here we go again...Sg vs telecaster
I have to admit, I love Tom Morello's sound he was getting using a MIM tele on the first couple of RATM albums. His tone was heavy and very ballsy.
It should be noted tho, that his tele tone does not sound anything like a traditional tele at all.
I have to admit, I love Tom Morello's sound he was getting using a MIM tele on the first couple of RATM albums. His tone was heavy and very ballsy.
It should be noted tho, that his tele tone does not sound anything like a traditional tele at all.
Diocletian
BrandNewGlossologist
Re: Here we go again...Sg vs telecaster
Neither for me.
While I love the LOOK of an SG, and my Epi version sounded absolutely massive with Duncans in there - it just felt like a guitar for a kid, or someone tiny like Angus Young. Neck was too thin, body too light. Swapping between a Jackson SL3 which weighed about double the SG and has a neck like a baseball bat, the SG just felt like my 18 month old daughter should be playing it.
I've never owned or played a tele - I don't do twang!
Neither for me.
While I love the LOOK of an SG, and my Epi version sounded absolutely massive with Duncans in there - it just felt like a guitar for a kid, or someone tiny like Angus Young. Neck was too thin, body too light. Swapping between a Jackson SL3 which weighed about double the SG and has a neck like a baseball bat, the SG just felt like my 18 month old daughter should be playing it.
I've never owned or played a tele - I don't do twang!
Pink Unicorn Horsey
Megä Pöny Rÿdr
Re: Here we go again...Sg vs telecaster
I can think of a time when a Tele specifically is called for (country, as you mentioned), but I can't think of a time when an SG is specifically called for.
- Keith
I can think of a time when a Tele specifically is called for (country, as you mentioned), but I can't think of a time when an SG is specifically called for.
- Keith
Fikealox
New member
Re: Here we go again...Sg vs telecaster
I feel the need for an SG (and the SG tone) several times a day, lol.
But seriously... To say teles are better than SGs because there's a genre which demands a tele tone and there's no genre that specifically demands an SG tone (presumably largely because LPs etc have a similar tone to SGs) is like saying that oranges are better than red apples because only oranges can go into orange cake, but green apples taste similar to red apples, so there's no recipe that calls specifically for red apples.
Nothing about that makes apples worse than oranges. But of course, you're free not to like the taste of apples (or SGs), just as I'm free to not like oranges (or teles)
I feel the need for an SG (and the SG tone) several times a day, lol.
But seriously... To say teles are better than SGs because there's a genre which demands a tele tone and there's no genre that specifically demands an SG tone (presumably largely because LPs etc have a similar tone to SGs) is like saying that oranges are better than red apples because only oranges can go into orange cake, but green apples taste similar to red apples, so there's no recipe that calls specifically for red apples.
Nothing about that makes apples worse than oranges. But of course, you're free not to like the taste of apples (or SGs), just as I'm free to not like oranges (or teles)
Last edited:
Pink Unicorn Horsey
Megä Pöny Rÿdr
Re: Here we go again...Sg vs telecaster
I'm actually allergic to all apples, which makes me very sad.
I'm actually allergic to all apples, which makes me very sad.
blueman335
Mojo's Minions
Re: Here we go again...Sg vs telecaster
That's because there's so many HB guitars these days (that old Gibson influence). There's a distinctive Tele sound & a (SSS) Strat sound, whereas with HB's there's a wider range of tones covered, and they lend themselves to things like alternative wirings like coil cut & parallel; although phase can be done with single coils, it seems to be more common with HB's. From the beginning SG's were offered with both HB's and P-90's; weren't Strats & Teles pretty much all single coil for their first 20 or 30 years (at least factory-wise)? That gave people a long time to identify "the Fender sound", especially since those two models account for nearly all of their sales. Gibson has had many successful electric designs in solid, semi-hollow, and full hollow bodies; single cutaway & double cutaway; with HB's, mini-HB's, and P-90's.
Is the "SG sound" the single P-90 Jr, HB Std, double P-90 Special, or HHH Custom? Lots of ground covered here. If we can tell a Strat or Tele on a CD, but not necessarily an SG, it's because Gibson offered so many SG's right out of the starting gate, & made it a much more versatile instrument. Tele's did a belated catch-up to compete in tonal variety. To me, that fact that there's been an identifiable "Tele sound" for decades shows the instrument's limitations, and that isn't necessarily something to brag about.
That's because there's so many HB guitars these days (that old Gibson influence). There's a distinctive Tele sound & a (SSS) Strat sound, whereas with HB's there's a wider range of tones covered, and they lend themselves to things like alternative wirings like coil cut & parallel; although phase can be done with single coils, it seems to be more common with HB's. From the beginning SG's were offered with both HB's and P-90's; weren't Strats & Teles pretty much all single coil for their first 20 or 30 years (at least factory-wise)? That gave people a long time to identify "the Fender sound", especially since those two models account for nearly all of their sales. Gibson has had many successful electric designs in solid, semi-hollow, and full hollow bodies; single cutaway & double cutaway; with HB's, mini-HB's, and P-90's.
Is the "SG sound" the single P-90 Jr, HB Std, double P-90 Special, or HHH Custom? Lots of ground covered here. If we can tell a Strat or Tele on a CD, but not necessarily an SG, it's because Gibson offered so many SG's right out of the starting gate, & made it a much more versatile instrument. Tele's did a belated catch-up to compete in tonal variety. To me, that fact that there's been an identifiable "Tele sound" for decades shows the instrument's limitations, and that isn't necessarily something to brag about.
richard parker
Active member
Re: Here we go again...Sg vs telecaster
Blueman - I totally agree with you about everything. The points you make about the versatility of the SG as opposed to the very one dimensional tele are spot on. As for the Fender sound in general I've just posted a comment on one of the Jeff Beck threads about his recent show at Ronne Scott's. An hour of listening to the thin, scratchy sounds of a strat made me long to see him pick up a Les Paul. One of the few strat/tele players I can listen to is Rory Gallagher but I found a clip of him on Youtube recently playing Bullfrog Blues using a Gibson (Melody Maker I think) and I just wished he had done that more often - it sounded so fat and punchy. There was an interview in UK Guitar mag recently with a guitarist called Stephen Dale Petit who made many good points one of which was (and I quote) 'Strats are versatile but in terms of tone they're really limited. When I hear somebody playing a Strat I always hear a Strat before I hear the player, but with Gibsons I hear the player first'. I know this is a Tele/SG thread but it does seem to have taken a Fender/Gibson route so hey ho.
Blueman - I totally agree with you about everything. The points you make about the versatility of the SG as opposed to the very one dimensional tele are spot on. As for the Fender sound in general I've just posted a comment on one of the Jeff Beck threads about his recent show at Ronne Scott's. An hour of listening to the thin, scratchy sounds of a strat made me long to see him pick up a Les Paul. One of the few strat/tele players I can listen to is Rory Gallagher but I found a clip of him on Youtube recently playing Bullfrog Blues using a Gibson (Melody Maker I think) and I just wished he had done that more often - it sounded so fat and punchy. There was an interview in UK Guitar mag recently with a guitarist called Stephen Dale Petit who made many good points one of which was (and I quote) 'Strats are versatile but in terms of tone they're really limited. When I hear somebody playing a Strat I always hear a Strat before I hear the player, but with Gibsons I hear the player first'. I know this is a Tele/SG thread but it does seem to have taken a Fender/Gibson route so hey ho.
guitfiddle
firstlessonologist
Re: Here we go again...Sg vs telecaster
See, thinking the Tele only has "one tone" is short sighted, at best. Sure it does the twangy country thing better than any other guitar, but it will do any shade of tone if you work with the knobs while you play and play it right.
See, thinking the Tele only has "one tone" is short sighted, at best. Sure it does the twangy country thing better than any other guitar, but it will do any shade of tone if you work with the knobs while you play and play it right.
