Is the myth of the Les Paul headstock true?

[whatshisname]

Re: Is the myth of the Les Paul headstock true?

Don't believe eveything you read, especially on the interwebz......

I've owned at least 30 Gibsons in my time, 20 or so being Les Pauls. I gig regularly and I'm not exactly gentle (or sober) with them. I've dropped them, bumped them and even had 3 in the trunk of a car that got totaled in a severe accident. I've used the neck as a tremolo bar and had straplocks fail, dropping the guitar, headstock first, to the ground at a sharp angle.......

Whats even worse than the above abuse? I'VE SHIPPED WITH UPS!

I've never had one break, not even crack...not once.

The only thing I've ever broken on any guitar is a string....

Substitute "20 or so being Les Pauls", with Flying Vs, and this is pretty spot on, to my experience. Including the car accident, although the one I was involved in wasn't so severe.

I even used to carry my Faded V, in a gig bag. My Gibsons have been through the ringer. They've been on planes, buses, vans, car trunks... etc. I even had someone push a guy down on top of an SG that I borrowed from a friend. It was also in a gig bag, and it was fine. (Scared the **** out of me, though!)

I think it's safe to say, that if they were as fragile as some would have you believe, all of mine would have been toast YEARS ago.

 

[jacksontrader]

Re: Is the myth of the Les Paul headstock true?

This one time, at band camp... LOL Where's Ed Roman? LOL

 

[Aceman]

Re: Is the myth of the Les Paul headstock true?

Jeebus - why do I have to explain EVERYTHING. Interesting discussion. I couldn't make it past page one though.

Here we go:

Are you using weak as a relative or absolute term? Lets be clear here - LP ARE BUILT LIKE BRICK SHIRTHOUSES. You could knock a wall out with one. Ever see anyone destroy a REAL LP on stage? Likely not. Because it would be fricken brutal to do!!!!

So - yes, because of the angle of the neck, it is generally a RELATIVELY WEAK spot compared to the rest. Now - that cut away pic on p1 is VERY MISLEADING. It makes it appear as if all that in between the neck and broken is about an 8th of an inch. AT THE THINNEST SPOT - yes. But the truss cavity/access is SURROUNDED by wood. So it isn't JUST that spot. There is MUCH MORE side support than bottom.

Next - The Volute. Nobody EVER gets this right. YES - because of some IMAGINED construction flaw, they added the volute. Unfortunately - that was a mistake. The volute did EXACTLY what it was supposed to do. MAde breaks ON THE NECK nearly impossible. However, what happens then is the force is diverted to THE HEADSTOCK. Necks are relatively easy to repair and can be fixed to perfection. Long string length over them, low tension, thick meaty wood. The headstock is increadibly difficlt to fix correctly because it has MONSTER tension over a short span (nut to post) and the wood is really thin. Oops.

And by the way...Mahogany breaks wayyyyy easier than maple. You can try that out at home with a board if you want. In the 70's - they changed the neck wood from Mahogany to maple 3 piece (5 if you count two headstock pieces) so a glued maple neck is MONSTER strong - no need for the volute. Fixed a problem twice - oops again.

And then there are the 60's necks...even thinner. Of course, 50's are much thicker. Some more points to consider.

I have a 1979 LP standard that I have dropped numerous times, hatched down on cement and destroyed a (sucky) tuner, physically slammed (when highly inebriated) on a cement ceiling headstock first (great next morning quote "What's the red stuff on the ceiling? Oh - Les Paul Headstock finish") And on top of all of that i bend the hell out of ala Steve Stevens.

I suppose they break. But again - I don't (usually) try to abuse it, and of all the Les Pauls I have seen in my life. Very Very Very few have had a broken headstock. And then - it was from ridiculously stupid act of well, stupidity.

Questions, anyone?

 

[Aceman]

Re: Is the myth of the Les Paul headstock true?

Don't believe eveything you read, especially on the interwebz......

I've owned at least 30 Gibsons in my time, 20 or so being Les Pauls. I gig regularly and I'm not exactly gentle (or sober) with them. I've dropped them, bumped them and even had 3 in the trunk of a car that got totaled in a severe accident. I've used the neck as a tremolo bar and had straplocks fail, dropping the guitar, headstock first, to the ground at a sharp angle.......

Whats even worse than the above abuse? I'VE SHIPPED WITH UPS!

I've never had one break, not even crack...not once.

The only thing I've ever broken on any guitar is a string....

Yeah! What he said!!! :headbang:

 

[Edgecrusher]

Re: Is the myth of the Les Paul headstock true?

Are Gibson´s designs significantly different from any other manufacturer in this regard and therefore more vulnerable, for example the imported 1:1 Gibson copies?

NO

The posted picture suggests the design is significantly different than a neck that uses a scarf joint. See the cross section was kinda eye opening and makes sense why other manufacturers use scarf joints or volutes.

I already said I think the issue is over stated but between them being mahogany vs maple and the way they are built iam inclined to think that they are more delicate than other designs.

 

[j9fd3s]

Re: Is the myth of the Les Paul headstock true?

The way I see it, a Porsche is going to break if you slam it into a retaining wall.

yes! i've seen it done. carbon fiber doors look expensive when they are broken....

You could knock a wall out with one. Ever see anyone destroy a REAL LP on stage? Likely not. Because it would be fricken brutal to do!!!!

this might be true! i smashed a chinese tele once, and it wasn't easy! i can't imagine a real LP....

ok well i can, i bet you could smash a porsche with it.....

-mike

 

[Stratman]

Re: Is the myth of the Les Paul headstock true?

Hendrix and Townshed both broke their Stratocaster headstock.

Maybe those Les Paul users broke their's the same way.


Pounching on the floor and into amps...

 

[Zerberus]

Re: Is the myth of the Les Paul headstock true?

The posted picture suggests the design is significantly different than a neck that uses a scarf joint.

No, it doesn`t, because the amount of meat at the truss rod rout and the presence or absence of a scarf joint are not in any way related to or indicative of each other. A scarf joint has nothing whatsoever to do with the design of the transition from neck to headstock. The scarf joint is merely the headstock glued on to the rest of the neck at about the second fret vs a one piece neck. While the realignment of the grain adds some strength, it´s not the primary reason it´s done.

The extra beef at the back of the neck that you´re talking about is called a "volute". Gibson also used these around and during the Norlin era. It´s one of the features people ***** and moan the most about. That´s why they don´t use them at all any more.

See the cross section was kinda eye opening and makes sense why other manufacturers use scarf joints or volutes.

I see nothing I haven´t seen before thousands of times, it´s a gibson style headstock transition that has been somewhat overzealously routed. a normal LP or similar will have more wood even at the thinnest part.

If however you will look at that photo, it only provides evidence as to why many LP headstocks break shortly after the nut instead of between nut and first fret as most other breaks occur.

If anything that picture tells you why a LP is a better choice for people that are too cheap and irresponsible for stands and cases, because one could plausibly argue that it´s designed to break along the headstock face and not across the playing section of the neck IF push ever comes to shove.

That all said: for people that are not complete tools, the entire discussion is COMPLETELEY IRRELEVANT

Why? Because guitars are not designed or engineered to be used as: Baseball bats, fallover traps, crossbows, garden spades.... and anybody that damages a guitar in that fashion i.e. by being a respectless prick deserves for it to break in the first place

I already said I think the issue is over stated but between them being mahogany vs maple and the way they are built iam inclined to think that they are more delicate than other designs.

I disagree. They are engineered to make music, not to cold-cock a rampaging ape, therefore their ape-disposal features are irrelevant.

.....
So... like anything controversial on the internet... it's a big broo-ha of misinformation and exaggeration wrapped around a small nugget of truth.

Quoted for truth :beerchug:

 

[blueman335]

Re: Is the myth of the Les Paul headstock true?

They are engineered to make music, not to cold-cock a rampaging ape, therefore their ape-disposal features are irrelevant.

+1. Shouldn't ever be a consideration in the selection of a musical instrument, at least not for an adult or teenager. Who picks a TV based on how well it survives a fall off the roof?

 

[Barron1]

Re: Is the myth of the Les Paul headstock true?

So I pretty much gather from what people have said on here that the myth is untrue. So the next time someone tells me my guitar's headstock will fall off, I will take said guitar and bash them over the head with it Honkey Tonk Man style.

 

[blueman335]

Re: Is the myth of the Les Paul headstock true?

So I pretty much gather from what people have said on here that the myth is untrue. So the next time someone tells me my guitar's headstock will fall off, I will take said guitar and bash them over the head with it Honkey Tonk Man style.

Hit them once for me. :naughty:Where I see damaged headsocks/necks is coming in from overseas shipping, banged around in freighters, and on docks. Once they're in players hands, it rarely happens. If you're a klutz, you can break anything. I consider the subject to be propaganda from the Fender crowd.

 

[Ashurbanipal]

Re: Is the myth of the Les Paul headstock true?

^^ Or people who spend too much time on Ed Roman's site.

Sounds like some of you guys should do a Mythbusters program on testing the strength of Gibson headsocks, with explosions etc.

 

[IanBallard]

Re: Is the myth of the Les Paul headstock true?

It's not a myth. They are physically weaker than, say, a Fender head stock. However, the materials, design and construction create different sounds and Gibson changing the design to prevent breaks in the event of a hard drop, would be more costly and tone-changing than needed.

Just don't drop a Gibson.

 

[marvelous_seven]

Re: Is the myth of the Les Paul headstock true?

Uhm,no it ain't me. I have 2 Gibsons in my stable right now, and have owned 25 gibsons so far. The only reason I won't a Gibson anytime soon is simple. They don't give me what I want, nor how I want it.

Please, don't point fingers if you only know nothing about me.

On topic: I agree its a weaker spot, a scarf joint or multilam neck with volute and shallower headstock angle are better designs, but it all boils down to 1 thing. Be careful with your stuff! Most likely, it will outlast you if you treat the instruments well.

Point taken,please excuse my big-mouth behaviour.

 

[Edgecrusher]

Re: Is the myth of the Les Paul headstock true?

It's not a myth. They are physically weaker than, say, a Fender head stock. However, the materials, design and construction create different sounds and Gibson changing the design to prevent breaks in the event of a hard drop, would be more costly and tone-changing than needed.

But i think it that brings up the question just exactly how much would the tone change?

Ive only owned 1 Norlin era Les Paul and it was a 74 custom that sounded good but not particularly exciting. I more chalked that up to the pancake body and thick finish than the neck volute. I know all the purists would scream that thats not the way they did it in 59 but for its own sake I wonder how different it would sound. How different would it sound with the head stock scarf jointed on? I know gibson prides themselves on their carved necks but I do have to wonder how different it is. Maybe its huge... Maybe its negligible.

 

[IanBallard]

Re: Is the myth of the Les Paul headstock true?

Maybe the tone aspect is negligible, but Gibson owners, like most Fender owners are fickle, vintage-obsessed folks scared of "change", hence the reversion back to classic Gibson construction since the Norlin era (maple necks, volutes, etc). Like I said, if you're gonna spend a gazillion bucks on a Gibson, you might as well keep her in a case and not get rough with her. A Tele on the other hand, can be used to fend off burglars if the rifle isn't handy.

 

[jacksontrader]

Re: Is the myth of the Les Paul headstock true?

^ :lmao: The Tele remark.

 

[blueman335]

Re: Is the myth of the Les Paul headstock true?

A Tele on the other hand, can be used to fend off burglars if the rifle isn't handy.

Perhaps, but you're much better off with the right tool for the right job. To a burglar, what's more intimidating to point at him: a pink Tele or an AK with a 30-round clip? What's going to make him soil his drawers?

 

[Zerberus]

Re: Is the myth of the Les Paul headstock true?

^^ Depends on who´s holding the Tele, he just might die laughing :laugh2:

 

[BloodRose]

Re: Is the myth of the Les Paul headstock true?

What was it Townshend knocked someone out with??