Les Paul, why is it so un-ergonomic?

[Xeromus]

At least Leo Fender got it right and made nearly the best guitar shape to conform to a person's body, it's completely ergonomic.

What's the deal with les pauls? I like the way they sound, but they are just plain uncomfortable to play. They are too heavy, the back cuts into your ribs and the upper bout digs into your forearm. The upper access isn't very good either. Anyone else think the body shape is very un-ergonomic and lacks any kind of imagination at all? It's like gee we'll take a solid slab of mahogany, cut it into the shape of an acoustic, make it thinner and add a cutaway, voila.

 

[some_dude]

Re: Les Paul, why is it so un-ergonomic?

If I could get a Strat to sound like a Les Paul, I would've ditched mine long ago.

 

[Willis]

Re: Les Paul, why is it so un-ergonomic?

It's like gee we'll take a solid slab of mahogany, cut it into the shape of an acoustic, make it thinner and add a cutaway, voila.

That's pretty much it, as it basically evolved from Gibson's archtop jazz guitars.

 

[nepalnt21]

Re: Les Paul, why is it so un-ergonomic?

If I could get a Strat to sound like a Les Paul, I would've ditched mine long ago.

you mean you've tried? BLASPHEMY!

 

[YJM_Rocks]

Re: Les Paul, why is it so un-ergonomic?

If it was ergonomical, it would'nt be a Les Paul.

It takes a real man to play a Paul.

 

[RiffRaff]

Re: Les Paul, why is it so un-ergonomic?

You can't be a girly man and play a lester......... ha ha ha ha ha ha

 

[Dankerella]

Re: Les Paul, why is it so un-ergonomic?

At least Leo Fender got it right and made nearly the best guitar shape to conform to a person's body, it's completely ergonomic.

What's the deal with les pauls? I like the way they sound, but they are just plain uncomfortable to play. They are too heavy, the back cuts into your ribs and the upper bout digs into your forearm. The upper access isn't very good either. Anyone else think the body shape is very un-ergonomic and lacks any kind of imagination at all? It's like gee we'll take a solid slab of mahogany, cut it into the shape of an acoustic, make it thinner and add a cutaway, voila.

Confucius say, "the Les Paul play you, you don't play Les Paul."

Goooonnggggg!

 

[DeadSkinSlayer3]

Re: Les Paul, why is it so un-ergonomic?

Actually, Les Paul just took his infamous 'log' guitar, which was almost a 2x4 with a neck, sawed an archtop in half, and glued the sides on. So it is very much like a thinner acoustic with a cutaway.

I find I don't need the arm cutaway or tummy cutaway with where I have the guitar slung, but the they're so damn heavy and bulky. I like my guitars to move a bit.

Why not look for a super thick mohogany bodied strat shape guitar with a 24.75 scale? That would probably be the best comprimise for LP tone with a good feel.

 

[YJM_Rocks]

Re: Les Paul, why is it so un-ergonomic?

Yeah, heavy as hell. Mmmm...Mahogany. I usually sling my guitars pretty high, and i still dont need and arm cut or tummy cut with my Evo. But i just bought that Predator, and the arm and tummy cuts are nice. Dang for such a cheap guitar its an extremely thick chunk of basswood.

 

[Sequanselar]

Re: Les Paul, why is it so un-ergonomic?

I prefer heavy guitars. They feel good on me. And when My shoulder starts going numb, I switch guitars. My Custom is 11.5, standard is 10.5, Studio is 9.5 . Just a handy little coincidence.

I think the cutaway is a bit shallow, a few notes are hard to reach and just grab a hold of and bend to pieces, but hey, that's why we have multiple guitars, right? If there were one perfect-at-every-thing instrument that had perfect tone and perfect action and a perfect neck, that changed with the guitarist's mood and how they felt like playing and sounding, there'd only be one company and one guitar. Where's the fun in that?

I love my Pauls, but there's also a place for my Floyd-equipped Jackson, my semi-hollow Phiga, and my strat knock-off Kramer.

Ergonomic or not, it's about the love.

-Seq

 

[Quencho092]

Re: Les Paul, why is it so un-ergonomic?

I think the cutaway is a bit shallow, a few notes are hard to reach and just grab a hold of and bend to pieces, but hey, that's why we have multiple guitars, right? If there were one perfect-at-every-thing instrument that had perfect tone and perfect action and a perfect neck, that changed with the guitarist's mood and how they felt like playing and sounding, there'd only be one company and one guitar. Where's the fun in that?

heck that would be funner than anything! A guitar that auto morphs into what you're feeling sounds a bit like a telecaster-you can wrench alot of soul and tone out of one with the right touch.

 

[danglybanger]

Re: Les Paul, why is it so un-ergonomic?

I don't have a problem with it.

The way they sit on a body is different than a strat... that's part of the different feel. I'd never say it hurts. It's just another stylistic difference between the paul and strat.

That said, my the paul II has a tummy cut

slade

 

[Sequanselar]

Re: Les Paul, why is it so un-ergonomic?

auto-morphing may be cool, but I think that the "perfect song" is always born from imperfect scenarios and situations. Some of the best blues I've played has been on the above mentioned Jackson. Having to overcompensate for "imperfections" brings out the music, one is forced to be more creative because there aren't appropriate tools to work with.

I'm not saying that Vai needs to start playing on a Merle Haggard Telecaster. I'm just saying the guitar is about "flaws", like people. Only with people they're "characteristics". And having flaws and set backs is often quite beneficial.

-Seq

 

[Woodcutter]

Re: Les Paul, why is it so un-ergonomic?

alot of the tone of a les paul comes from it's hugh mahognay body IMO. For the first two or three years I played the guitar I just had my acoustic (no tummy cut etc.) so I'm used to know tummy cut.

 

[HarrisonDavid]

Re: Les Paul, why is it so un-ergonomic?

I have noticed some people can't be happy know matter what. I find them to be comfortable. Of course I previously owned a Charvel Avenger.(Rhoads V) :smack:

 

[Xeromus]

Re: Les Paul, why is it so un-ergonomic?

One nice thing I must admit about a paul is how they sit just right on a strap. They just balance out so well, even though they can be a bit uncomfortable after a while.

 

[Hellion]

Re: Les Paul, why is it so un-ergonomic?

The weight of Lesters never bothered me, it's always been about how they felt. In my own mind there's a lot of similarities between Telecasters and Les Pauls. They're both very utilitarian, there's nothing on them that doesn't belong there, two pickups, one switch, both very solid instruments.

 

[Ez74]

Re: Les Paul, why is it so un-ergonomic?

i think gibson did get it right... it's just that the guitar is called an SG.

 

[XSSIVE]

Re: Les Paul, why is it so un-ergonomic?

If I could get a Strat to sound like a Les Paul, I would've ditched mine long ago.

i'm workin on it...got a few ideas going through my head...

-Mike

 

[ex-250]

Re: Les Paul, why is it so un-ergonomic?

i greatly prefer LP bodies to strats. not only do i love heavy guitars in general, but i actually find strats really uncomfortable. the upper horn always gets in the way, and theres just too much body around where you picking arm goes (which probably explains my love of explorers). the sole advantage i think a strat has is the improved upper fret access, but that rarely bothers me. and dont even get me started on things other than just the body- middle pickups/strat knob placement/strat bridges......euch.