Les Pauls

[jonsick]

Re: Les Pauls

The point of this thread is no so much about 59s, or even Les Pauls.
The point of this thread is to ask people not to over generalize about the combinations of pickups and guitars.

I apologize, I think I initially misunderstood in that case. I hope not to offend, but isn't that a bunch of crap? Surely we have to generalize sometimes?

I mean, if I put a Jackson Soloist and a Les Paul next to each other then I don't think I would blame you for having some pre-conceived notions about which one would be hotter or darker, brighter or more fretboard w*nkery friendly for example. And you would probably be right!

I'm as much as an advocate as anyone with the idea that any two guitars of the same make and model can and most likely will sound different. I'm with you. But surely if I come here looking for Les Paul pickups, it's not a completely far out thought that you will have some idea on how the guitar sounds in the first place? It may get a little tougher with some lesser known guitars, for example if I came on here looking for pickups for a Synister Gates Schecter or something else that's not too common.

 

[Chickenwings]

Re: Les Pauls

depends if you see an epiphone les paul and a gibson les paul as being the same make and model or not. They are both called Les Pauls and they both come from factories owned by the same company. Personally, when playing two guitars like these i find enough sonic differences that its worth mentioning to someone who might be choosing pickups, which guitar is the frame of reference.

i reckon these three guitars are different enpugh that its worth mentioning too. Even tho they are all stratocasters and all are made in factories owned by the same company:

We have to generalize to a small extent, given that every individual guitar has its own individual nuances, but i think its only fair to people that we might be giving advice to that we let them know exactly what we mean as far as possible when we are talking about how certain pickups interact with certain guitars.

 

[Edgecrusher]

Re: Les Pauls

So, in the future my request is this: That when we offer advice to try to help out a forumite, can we please make the effort to explain a frame of reference for the sound of a particular pickup. Eg: I found that in my mid 90s epiphone that the 59 sounded too bass heavy.
This will at least allow the reader to fill in the gaps of their own knowledge when they are comparing their experience between, say a bright and lively R7 reissue and a dull sounding samick that they used to own.

Actually if you think about the guys who are the fondest of saying "59's are always xxxxx in LP" or "JB's dont work in LP's" are guys who dont actually play Gibson Les Pauls... But guys who play one of the various Epis or single cut copies from some asian manufacturer.

They also love to appeal to the bandwagon. "Most guys here love A4's in the neck of their LP's" Never mind that "most" is their code for 4 people...

 

[Edgecrusher]

Re: Les Pauls

You'll have better luck trying to turn the sky green. All you can do is sit back and silently know better.

At the end of the day my consolation is that I realize that this forum is tiny microcosm of the guitar industry as a whole and is really much ado about nothinig...

 

[Chickenwings]

Re: Les Pauls

yeah pretty much

 

[jonsick]

Re: Les Pauls

So... I should use 59s?

(just kidding)

 

[blueman335]

Re: Les Pauls

Actually if you think about the guys who are the fondest of saying "59's are always xxxxx in LP" or "JB's dont work in LP's" are guys who dont actually play Gibson Les Pauls... But guys who play one of the various Epis or single cut copies from some asian manufacturer.

Oh, it's a lot more than one or two guys, but you see what you want to see and remember what you want to remember. If it was just me, I wouldn't even be mentioning it. It's when I see a variety of members say the same thing that I begin to see a pattern.

Everyone here uses generalizations when recommending PU's, based on what we've experienced or others have posted about. And that's exactly what people want who come here asking for advice. They don't want to hear: "Every Duncan sounds great in every guitar for every genre." They could do that on their own. Are we allowed to say '59's tend to have a sharp high-end and scooped mids, or is that not politically correct either? What can we say? Everyone here gives their opinions on tone, what they like and how to get them. Gibson175 has certainly spoken negatively about '57 Classics on multiple occasions; isn't that a generalization? Some people love them. Some '57 fan could start a thread about that, and he's just as guilty as the people he's complaining about in this thread.

Or what about the generalization that all Gibsons sound better than all Epi's? There's been many Gibson owners here that have said otherwise. But that generalization is oaky to parrot, huh? And it's also okay when you guys 'play to the bandwagon.'

It all comes down the generalizations being a problem only when you don't agree with them.

 

[Edgecrusher]

Re: Les Pauls

Oh, it's a lot more than one or two guys, but you see what you want to see and remember what yo... blah blah ...woof woof...

Did I name you? No i didnt... If you think your being picked on dont flatter yourself. If your guilty of the things i mentioned then maybe you should look inward.

The little tirade you just posted sounds more like a confession then a defense.

You can say anything you want... but if its an appeal to the bandwagon or the faceless "they" or "many" dont be suprised if you get questioned for the validity of your argument. If your observation and point are strong enough you dont have to make those sorts of fallacious arguments.

The whole point of G175's post and mine is that this place is rife with logical fallacies being used in dispensing advice. Advice that is lauded as being gospel when anything more than a cursory check would find that its not. If your advice is solid it doesnt need to be caked in BS for people to believe

 

[DrNewcenstein]

Re: Les Pauls

I had a 1993 USA Gibson LP Standard for 10 years. I could not get that guitar to sound boomy or dark or have any other tonal character that I've always heard/read other people say about it. It sounded just as bright and brittle as any other guitar I'd ever played. Maybe because my picking technique and playing style and preamp/amp settings leaned heavily in that direction?

Other people who played it could make it sound dark and wooly and boomy all day long but couldn't get a stinging, piercing lead tone out of it like I could.

So I guess that means pickup recommendations in general are the largest generalization one could encounter?

 

[Chickenwings]

Re: Les Pauls

I had a 1993 USA Gibson LP Standard for 10 years.

THIS is good information for readers.
All i'm asking for is that people actually write what kind of axe they are using as their frame of reference when making recommendations.

 

[blueman335]

Re: Les Pauls

i'm asking... that people actually write what kind of axe they are using as their frame of reference when making recommendations.

In summary:

- Generalizations are bad.

- Positive generalizations are good, and require no support.

- Negative generalizations are bad and require support. Ideally the person should also provide sound clips of his playing prowess.

- Negative generalizations are okay when they're for a PU you don't like ('57 Classics). No support is needed.

- Negative generalizations are not okay when they're for a PU you like (PG's). Support is required.

- When people make negative generalizations about PU's you like (PG's), it's not okay, and appropriate responses include getting upset and insulting that person.

- When you make negative generalizations about PU's you don't like ('57 Classics), it's okay, and other members are out-of-line if they get upset and insult you.

- Can you clarify: You've said '57's are poor sounding PU's, and Edgecutter says Gibsons are great-sounding guitars; over the years Gibson's had '57's in many of their models at one time or another. Can you reconcile this? To my untrained eyes both of these seem to be generalizations, and I know how you both condemn the use of them.

I think I got it. Makes sense to me, consider it done. It would help if you posted a list of the PU's you like and don't like, so we know how we're supposed to talk about them. Some people may question why you have more rules than the Duncan moderators, but they obviously don't realize how consistently you've followed your own rules. If you can do it, everyone else can too.

 

[blueman335]

Re: Les Pauls

The whole point of G175's post and mine is that this place is rife with logical fallacies being used in dispensing advice.

Of which you have been totally innocent of in all 5,400 of your posts. Kudos! Even the fair-minded Gibson175 hasn't been able to do that (in his bashing of '57's and glowing praise of PG's). You've set a standard for objectivity that we shall all strive to attain. I look to you to set an example by listing the guitars used in all your comments about PU's.

 

[Edgecrusher]

Re: Les Pauls

Of which you have been totally innocent of in all 5,400 of your posts. Kudos! Even the fair-minded Gibson175 hasn't been able to do that (in his bashing of '57's and glowing praise of PG's). You've set a standard for objectivity that we shall all strive to attain. I look to you to set an example by listing the guitars used in all your comments about PU's.

You really seem to feel that all this is personally directed at you. Why is that? No one named names. The way your reacting does smell funny though... like... guilt soiled sweat socks.

Its funny that when you get riled up you have to resort to deliberate twisting of words to form even the thinnest defense, none of what you say was said was even said but then you know that dont you, this is just all you can think of ... so in the words of the great Sergeant Hulka

 

[uOpt]

Re: Les Pauls

THIS is good information for readers.
All i'm asking for is that people actually write what kind of axe they are using as their frame of reference when making recommendations.

I have two MIJ Les Pauls that are identical in construction and documented wood choices. Even with the same pickups and electronic they sound very different, and it even shows up in frequency distribution graphs.

That's the problem I have with this thread.

This thread places too much emphasis on manufacturer and brand choice and manufacturer's choices (how much control do they have, really?), and not enough on random factors such as individual wood pieces (including but not limited to sub-par sourcing on part of the manufacturer) and how the truss rod placing and the anchors in the top (if any) worked out with this particular piece.

 

[blueman335]

Re: Les Pauls

You really seem to feel that all this is personally directed at you. Why is that? No one named names.

My posts on a couple of threads in the past week seemed like the inspiration for Gibson175 to start this thread. It appeared that I may have stepped on some toes. But I could be mistaken. Or maybe it's from a few of the same guys periodically blowing up at me for doing the same thing they do, only about different PU's. It's curious how 'objectivity' becomes a requirement when talking about a few people's favorite PU's, when they don't seem to be able to do it consistently themselves. Funny how that works. It's okay for the 'elite inner circle of tone experts' to make generalizations (positive and negative), but when their favorite PU's are referred to in a less-than-flattering way, they get their feathers ruffled and expect others to provide proof. Double standard? When someone talks less-than-favorably about my favorite PU's, I don't call them names, personally insult them, or demand to hear clips of their playing ability to see if they're worthy of making such statements. I guess I'm just old-fashioned that way. I still have this naïve idea that we can talk about gear here without putting people down and lashing out at each other. Maybe one day.

And BTW, I'm not referring to you in this post. No names were mentioned.

 

[donaldr]

Re: Les Pauls

What I like about this forum is how members are respectful of each others, and that everyone can give their opinion without fear of being slashed. I think this thread is drifting a bit from that...

 

[donaldr]

Re: Les Pauls

I personally appreciate when someone can give me some information about it's comment /observation/opinion to make sure it applies to MY context and members are usually doing so. But it's also my responsibility when I open a thread to give enough information so that others don't ask me for additional information and they can give there opinion based on THAT information. I can also challenge an opinion if I find it "strange" compared to other opinions I received and ask in what guitar the opinion.

As it has been said, no guitars from same manufactures are totally identical but then are usually not totally different from either. Amps/speakers/technique also have big influence on sound and our perception of it.

 

[uOpt]

Re: Les Pauls

What I like about this forum is how members are respectful of each others, and that everyone can give their opinion without fear of being slashed. I think this thread is drifting a bit from that...

It's always the same people. The ignore list helps, as underengineered as it is.

The people who are so bad you can't killfile them are here but not that many.

 

[blueman335]

Re: Les Pauls

I personally appreciate when someone can give me some information about it's comment /observation/opinion to make sure it applies to MY context and members are usually doing so. But it's also my responsibility when I open a thread to give enough information so that others don't ask me for additional information and they can give there opinion based on THAT information. I can also challenge an opinion if I find it "strange" compared to other opinions I received and ask in what guitar the opinion.

That's the way I think it should work too. Get a variety of input and views; then you're informed and can make your own decision. As part of that, you probably want to know member experiences on where they think a PU works best and where it doesn't. It's almost all opinion. Doesn't mean you'll have the same experience as any of them, but at least you won't be blind-sided. I'd like to think we can give someone more than the sanitized manufacturer's marketing copy about a PU. The anger seems to come when a recommendation doesn't necessarily portray someone's favorite PU's in the best possible light. The occasional knock-down, drag-out fights over that are really pretty juvenile. But that's been part of the entertainment here for many years. Keep your sense of humor. There's a lot of good info here and lots of helpful people, even if we don't agree with each other all of the time.

 

[Chickenwings]

Re: Les Pauls

I have two MIJ Les Pauls that are identical in construction and documented wood choices. Even with the same pickups and electronic they sound very different, and it even shows up in frequency distribution graphs.

That's the problem I have with this thread.

This thread places too much emphasis on manufacturer and brand choice and manufacturer's choices (how much control do they have, really?), and not enough on random factors such as individual wood pieces (including but not limited to sub-par sourcing on part of the manufacturer) and how the truss rod placing and the anchors in the top (if any) worked out with this particular piece.

You are right of course. Every guitar is different and unique in some way, even when comparing two guitars that come out of the same plant on the same day.