Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

[hydro]

Re: Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

Some people just don't like the short scale length. To each his/her own.

See this is part of it, access to upper frets; I have only had one guitar with a single cutaway (which I sold) and for years I played a Rickenbacker 360 with 24 frets. Not that I use 'em all but I like the open feel. I played a Firebird not long ago and loved the openness. It kinda reminded me of the way a Strat feels but with a Gibson sound.

Part of my deal is, what the hell do I do with my thumb on a single cutaway?

I wonder how much of the sound of the LP has to do with the contact the 12th fret and beyond has with the wood that would otherwise be cut out on an SG or other double cutaway style?

 

[Mincer]

Re: Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

I never got them either. I have played several, and love when other people play them, and the sound, but the ergonomics don't work for me at all. I refuse to take time to bond with an instrument- it has to adapt to me, not the other way around. I have to bond immediately or I move on. I just enjoy what others do on them now.

 

[FuseG4]

Re: Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

I've had a few LP-shaped guitars and I get what everyone is saying.

I hate the weight and the upper fret access.
I also hate that gibson is taking away a lot of the "looks" factor with all these perimeter bursts. Teardrop burst or GTFO

 

[Little Pigbacon]

Re: Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

Don't sweat it, dude. Life's short; focus on what you like.

 

[AlexR]

Re: Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

Les Pauls certainly do need more 'skill', 'practice' etc to be able to play up high. They are a thick body, and limited access. I wouldn't called it flawed at all, but you certainly don't get the almost technique free access you have on an SG or even a strat.

The thing with a LP is the combo of woods can be a winner or loser based on the individual bits, and with weight relief, plantation timber and a glued in neck the requirement for compatible blanks is higher - but with no foolproof way of knowing what will be compatible before plugging in.

Another thing is pickups. If you are used to (and set your amps up for) thinner toned guitars, then by definition the thick lower mids grunt will be dark. Maybe a p90 version would be more to your liking.

 

[Phantasmagoria]

Re: Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

.. just cant get the "feel" of the guitar... it has always felt awkward on my body... too short or small or the angle is awkward for me,

Love the tone, can't play them very well.

Same here. My cheap AXL LP clone has a pretty convincing LP tone & a slightly deeper cutaway/thinner neck/more ergonomic neck-joint etc (Frankly, I even think it looks better..haha....pretty sure that won't go down well here)

The truth is, I prefer it's matte/worn looking finish to the typical flashy/gaudy/glossy LP quilt/burst/whatever top (which is one reason I never felt the "LP playing urge" in the past lol) It plays great ...BUT it's still not what I'm used to as far as feel/ergonomics go.

It gets played quite a bit at home, but I have'nt been confident enough to use it live....there's just that lack of familiarity/nagging bodily discomfort that holds me back from rocking it onstage..

 

[Chris of Arabia]

Re: Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

I have only one thing to say here...

McCarty


/thread

 

[vinta9e]

Re: Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

They're poorly designed guitars in many, many ways. It's not odd at all that you dislike them in real-world use. They were a failure in their day. Then a few famous guitarists took a liking to them once music styles had changed a bit, and they took off in popularity.

I have two carved-top Pauls. They do what they do, but they aren't by any means my favorite guitars, or the world's most versatile guitars. There is some stuff to like about Pauls...and a lot to dislike about them. But one thing is for sure: nothing does the Les Paul thing except for a Les Paul. If you have a use for that thing in your music, then you should have one, because nothing else will do. If you don't have a use for it, then don't bother with them, because they will just frustrate you.

They are fantastically designed guitars in many many ways. It's not odd at all that you dislike them in real world use, though. They were a success that caught late, when a whole bunch of famous guitarists learned their quirks and harnessed them in their musical styles, and they took off in popularity.

I have none, zero, nil, nada Pauls. They do what they do, they aren't by any means my favorite but perhaps the world's most versatile guitars. There is a lot to like about Pauls and some stuff to dislike about them. But one thing is for sure: nothing does the Les Paul thing except for a Les Paul. If you don't have a use for it, then don't bother with them, because they will just frustrate you.

 

[CTN]

Re: Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

I can't get along with LPs either, for many of the same reasons. no biggie.

 

[blueman335]

Re: Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

They are fantastically designed guitars in many many ways. It's not odd at all that you dislike them in real world use, though. They were a success that caught late, when a whole bunch of famous guitarists learned their quirks and harnessed them in their musical styles, and they took off in popularity.

It was the same slow start for Teles, Strats, Flying V's, Explorers, & Firebirds. Distinctive new designs usually take a while to catch on.

 

[blueman335]

Re: Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

I have never owned a Les Paul.

That's going to make a difference. You need some time to get comfortable with one, dial in your amp, and then see what you think.

 

[JeffB]

Re: Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

I have been back and forth over nearly 30 years with my love/hate with Les Pauls. When you get a truly great one, they are magical. But there are alot of just good (or worse) sounding ones. I have come to prefer the 335 for tone. Clarity is always an issue with Les Pauls for me. Most are just one dimensional and dense sounding. I also find many have a very soft lazy attack,which drives me nuts. I also find they tend to sound better with more aggressive pickups. My current LP classic I chose because it has a very fast attack, and is very very clear. It still needs a bit more aggressive pups than I prefer, but I have got it dialed in pretty well. The best modern Les Paul I have ever heard or played was my old R8 (which was better than some, but not all, original 1950s models I have played) It was truly a once in a lifetime guitar, but I got laid off, and had to sell it. I still daydream about it.

Fret access never bothers me much if its a truly good player.

But I have had a bunch that just never done a thing for me, except for looks. I think at last count, I have owned right at 2 dozen, not including Epiphones. A great strat is still a more elusive beast, but Les Pauls are really tough.

 

[Johtosotku]

Re: Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

I've been on both sides of the fence.

In the end I've found that LPs are guitars just like every other, there's nothing innately magical in them. That said, they are very good at what they do. One has to own one to find out if they're it, or not. Or in my case, own one multiple times. I think the last one is here to stay.

 

[hydro]

Re: Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

I have a friend with a LP Studio. It needs a good set up but maybe I will try to log some time on it and see if it sticks. I think this one is chambered, it's a fairly recent one.

 

[tc]

Re: Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

I don't dig the bridge design because of the neck angle that comes with it.

But man, the way they sound and look is just. Whoa.

 

[SirJackdeFuzz]

Re: Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

Let me preface this by saying:

it really pains me, because I think the Les Paul is the most beautiful, iconic solidbody electric guitar ever made. But every time I have played one I have been left cold. The single cutaway bothers me, the weight bothers me, the neck (especially up near the body) bothers me, and the tone is so dark, almost remote sounding to me... They just always felt like I was playing a log.

Maybe i never played a really good one, or maybe i just don't get it.

I mostly play SGs and hollowbodies. I have always wanted a Les Paul but to be brutally honest, only because of their looks.

My main guitar idols (except Iommi and Jimi) all played LPs at some point or another. Am I just a mutant? Am I missing a chromosome? WtF?

Looks like we are in the same boat, so to speak, as i feel the same about str@ts.

And i sooo want to have a 'Malmsteen-white' model (without the scalloped neck)
I think they are sexy as hell, but i HATE the feeling of a str@t agains me - sitting & standing.
Maybe someone should make a SOLID BLOCK str@t, like a Tele / Les Paul . . . maybe then i will like it ?

 

[uOpt]

Re: Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

Let me preface this by saying:

it really pains me, because I think the Les Paul is the most beautiful, iconic solidbody electric guitar ever made. But every time I have played one I have been left cold. The single cutaway bothers me, the weight bothers me, the neck (especially up near the body) bothers me, and the tone is so dark, almost remote sounding to me... They just always felt like I was playing a log.

Maybe i never played a really good one, or maybe i just don't get it.

I mostly play SGs and hollowbodies. I have always wanted a Les Paul but to be brutally honest, only because of their looks.

My main guitar idols (except Iommi and Jimi) all played LPs at some point or another. Am I just a mutant? Am I missing a chromosome? WtF?

In case you don't realize it, you are precisely where Gibson was in 1960. Their solidbody was just impractical and the sound unpopular.

Gibson's problem at the time was they they went overboard with a too thin body, a too fragile neck joint (in addition to the fragile headplate). And the whole thing can be neck-diving when Fenders are not. If they had had just a bit more brain and did the equivalent of a PRS at a time, or a contoured Tele like think with Les Paul scale, we would probably not have this discussion right now.

 

[uOpt]

Re: Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

Looks like we are in the same boat, so to speak, as i feel the same about str@ts.

And i sooo want to have a 'Malmsteen-white' model (without the scalloped neck)
I think they are sexy as hell, but i HATE the feeling of a str@t agains me - sitting & standing.
Maybe someone should make a SOLID BLOCK str@t, like a Tele / Les Paul . . . maybe then i will like it ?

The body contours are just a bad idea. They put the playing surface of the guitar too close to the body, especially with a low bridge (Fender) a opposed to a TOM on posts on a carved top.

In the bass world this is well known to Stingray players, where old Stingrays and new Stingray Classic models have no contours, and some people like it that way.

Some SR classics can be very heavy. Contour cutting also means weight relief. In a way contours are a convenient excuse for Fender/MusicMan to cut away wood for weight relief reasons, just like Gibson swiss-cheeses.

 

[SirJackdeFuzz]

Re: Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

In case you don't realize it, you are precisely where Gibson was in 1960. Their solidbody was just impractical and the sound unpopular.

Gibson's problem at the time was they they went overboard with a too thin body, a too fragile neck joint (in addition to the fragile headplate). And the whole thing can be neck-diving when Fenders are not.

If they had had just a bit more brain and did the equivalent of a PRS at a time, or a contoured Tele like think with Les Paul scale, we would probably not have this discussion right now.

Hey uOpt, what do you mean but this ?

Sorry, not following

 

[That90'sGuy]

Re: Why can't I dig on Les Pauls?

I have only one thing to say here...

McCarty


/thread

Except that most Gibbys blow them out of the water tonally. I've been through a half a dozen USA McCarties (no exaggeration) and only one, a black '96, came close to the low mid richness that you'll find with your standard Les Pauls (that particular one was the only one that thumped). I went through a number of pickups in them and the construction just made them sound different. Playability wise, it's no contest IMHO.... the McCarty kills the Les Paul. No "G" string tuning instabilities on any of them and the slightly longer scale gave my large hands more room. The wide fat profile is ridiculously comfortable on top of it. No matter what I put in the PRS, the pickups always sounded clearer than with Les Pauls and while that can be a good thing, the slight muddiness is what makes the Les Paul work as well as it does and saturate on overdriven chords.

Les Pauls are simply not my thing, but I respect them. I think you'd be hard pressed to replace them for some rock applications. There's a girth and a fatness that kills with leads and the low mids sit right with 5th chords. They're a classic for a reason, but the feel, playability and lack of versatility in tone led me to sell my 2000 Les Paul Standard.

As a musician, you need to find your own voice. For some folks the Les Paul is it. I've found myself more drawn to the clarity and versatility of telecasters, Rics, Gretsches, etc. and those are all on the other end of the guitar pool.