Re: Is it just me...
I think what TP is driving at is that the LP was designed to deliver a more consistent, smoother sound than contemporary instruments like the tele could provide. Not that 'you can't play dynamically on an LP'.
The electrics he was comparing it to were those of the big old hollowbodies. A - he needed a guitar that could be amplified to play with an orchestra. When he made the hollowbodies loud, however, he quickly found a few issues arose, the hollow body would mess with the dynamics of the sound, become TOO pronounced for his tastes, and do it couldn't keep up with an orchestra without turning it much louder, which would create feedback. The Les Paul fixed both of those, as without the soundhole there wasn't feedback and the dynamics would be about even all around, leaving the volume control mostly to the electronics rather than the player. (I read this in the Rock and Roll hall of fame)
I'm not saying they aren't dynamic, surely they are, I own one and I never touch my volume controls on it, I control my sound by my picking, but I find my hollowbody and my strat are far more dynamic, have much more range to their sound, whereas the Les Paul sounds good regardless of how I hit it.
And your above comment is right, about being harder to get vibrato on a Les Paul. The way I figure it, is everyone has hands suited to a certain guitar. My vibrato sounds crappy on shorter scale guitars but great with a tele or strat, whereas some people are the opposite. Some people just cant get a Les Paul to sound good because thats just not how their hands go, they are an extreme, as is the strat.
EDIT: And the Les Paul was 'technically' invented before the broadcaster/tele, but Gibson would have nothing of it. They turned Les Paul down many times, said the idea was worthless, laughable even. It wasn't until the tele came out and got popular that Gibson finally said "Hmm, I guess we need a solid body, wheres that Les Paul dude?"
Though I'm sure dude wasn't the word they used...
