Why I prefer Strats to Les Pauls

Re: Why I prefer Strats to Les Pauls

I never understood this "Stratocaster><Les Paul" thing...

Some guys like blondes.

Some guys like brunettes.

One isn't necessarily better than the other.

I'd rather play with both! :naughty:
 
Re: Why I prefer Strats to Les Pauls

I don't own a Les Paul, I've played a few but never one that felt good to me - too cumbersome. I love my very modified 64 SG with a JB in the bridge, this is the guitar I'm being buried with. I own a JV Strat and have put a Bareknuckles p/u in the bridge but I've never been able to get a good sound out of it. I recently got a Cornford Roadhouse combo which makes the SG sound divine. The other day I plugged my strat into it to show a friend how bad it sounded and - it sounded terrific. I can't way to play it at a gig.
 
Re: Why I prefer Strats to Les Pauls

I'll normally qualify my posts. However, I think that the arguments have been presented well on both sides, and mostly in the original post. So a rare +1 from me!
 
Re: Why I prefer Strats to Les Pauls

I'm going to make it a point from now on to check when a thread was originated, and not post to old threads!
 
Re: Why I prefer Strats to Les Pauls

There are 2 reasons why a player should pick a certain guitar (and you listed neither).

Tone & Playability. That's why a guitar will be in my hands, not because of neck swapping, or weight or any other reason. Its all about how it feels and how it sounds. The $ shouldn't really mean that much either. A guitar is a long term investment. If you buy it right you will have it for many years to come. Now all of that is cool and all, but I too favor Strats, but when I need a Les Paul and the music requires it.... nothing and I mean nothing else will do. It is a have to have for any guitar player, even if you don't play it all the time.
 
Re: Why I prefer Strats to Les Pauls

I like hammers: tack hammers, jack hammers, mallets, and ball-peens. I'm envious of Thor and appreciative of black smiths. Jewelers use them sparingly, but leather workers grab for them often. Hammers rule as tools, and I wish I had more of them.
 
Re: Why I prefer Strats to Les Pauls

What difference does it make if the thread's old...it's still the same group of guys blathering on about guitars...:rolleyes:

I prefer Teles to Strats cause they're just more chunky sounding, but I'm not sellng the LP:scratchch
 
Re: Why I prefer Strats to Les Pauls

Here's a new one... for my purposes neither a Gibson LP or Fender Strat will cover what I need to play.
Neither have a neck shape I feel completely comfortable with (although the Fender is closer to the money for me than Gibson), neither have a fretboard radius flat enough.. playing on anything less than 14 inches is uncomfortable for me. Most Gibby's/Fenders don't have jumbo frets which I need to be able to play at my best.
I like a neck thru or a AANJ, Gibson and Fender don't offer that in their normal production models for the most part.

Give me a 1987 Ibanez RG550 over a Fender or Gibson LP anyday. It's neck is more comfortable for my hands and doesn't cause my hands to feel fatigued after 20 minutes like most LP necks do and it allows me to play at my best.
It won't sound like either of them, but it does have both humbuckers and a single coil.
Replace the stock pickups with something good, it will still wont sound like a Fender or Gibson, but what it will do... is have a sound of it's own that I will still love to bits.
 
Re: Why I prefer Strats to Les Pauls

well, Ibanez was the answer for me. i hated ibbys with a passion 'till i got my hands on their SZ. i was a fat-strat player for a long time. i flirted with a couple of SGs and LPs, but the SG felt like i was playing on a plank, while the LP was like a reinforced beam. this SZ sounds excellent and feels like a gigging guitar should. go figure.
 
Re: Why I prefer Strats to Les Pauls

well, Ibanez was the answer for me.

I would be pretty boring if we all played the same guitars & drove the same cars. Granted, certain models are going to be more popular than others, but as good as they are, they don't fill the needs of everybody. Viva la difference!

As much as I like Gibson designs, I like to hear a Strat in the hands of someone who knows how to get a good tone out of one; it can be pretty impressive. Unfortunately, the average Strat player doesn't seem to understand the subtleties involved. God bless the guys that make them sound good.
 
Re: Why I prefer Strats to Les Pauls

Well, since everyone else kicked this up to the top of the pile, I'll put in my .02. I have 1 MIM Strat I bought in 1998 which sits in a case in the closet, and 4 LP's I play all of the time.

Reason 1 – A MIA Strat cost less than half what a LP Standard cost. I’m basing this on MF prices of $2,119.99 for a Gibson Les Paul Standard ’60s Neck (List Price: $3,178.00) and $949.98 for a MIA Strat (List Price: $1,356.99).

With a deluxe or a signature Strat you can get up to $1300-1400. With a Les Paul you can get up to…well what does a Jimmy Page sig. LP cost, $12,000? And worth every penny I’m sure.

So I could have one Les Paul or two Strats; or one Strat and one of something else; or one Strat and an extra grand in my pocket. I think even hardcore Les Paul players would have a hard time convincing people that a Les Paul is twice the guitar a Strat is.

I don't care about the price. If I want a Les Paul, I'll bust my ass and pay for one. If I want a Strat, I'll bust my ass and pay for a Strat. I'll never pay more that $500 for a bolt on. IMO, bolt on = cheap. I paid $300 for my new MIM in 1998.

Reason 2 – I’ve never heard of anyone breaking the neck on a Strat (excluding abuse). But a Paul with a snapped neck is very common. Which leads me to number 3.

Only a dumb ass bust a headstock. If you aren't smart enough to take care of a guitar, so be it.

Reason 3 – Bolt on necks. If you did happen to snap a neck, anybody with a screwdriver could replace it. Setting it up would be more difficult, but still nothing compared to removing the neck on, pretty much, any Gibson. Which leads into number 4.

Bolt on necks = cheap IMO. Cheap in TONE.

Reason 4 – Interchangeability. Want to put this neck on that body? If it’s a Strat, no problem (or a Tele). If it’s a Les Paul, big problem. There are also plenty of aftermarket Fender products available (necks, bodies, etc.). So someone with intermediate skills can build anything they want (within reason). Apparently Leo had this in mind when he decided on the bolt-on neck for his Fenders. He wanted people to be able to swap out parts, or mix and match parts to get what they wanted.

If you buy the correct guitar in the first place, why would you need interchangeability? And you can get a variety of LP necks. First ones were 1 piece mahogany. Then there are three piece mahogany (1970 - 1976). Then 3 piece maple (1977 - 1982). There's your variety.

Reason 5 – Wood. Les Pauls are built primarily of Mahogany. A beautiful and great sounding wood, which grows in the rainforests and could be clear-cut right out of existence. Strat necks are made of Maple. Strat bodies are made of Ash, Alder, Popular... All these woods grow in the U.S. and are renewable.

? I fail to see the point. Plenty of used LP's for sale.

Reason 6 – Variety. You can buy Strats with three single coils or two singles and a double, or two doubles, or HSH… Strats come with 7.25” radii or 9.5” with V-neck, or C-neck profiles, maple or rosewood fingerboards, hardtail or softtail.
Not that you don’t have a choice with an LP. You can have a 50’s neck or a 60’s neck, your choice, although apparently not for the same price anymore.

It's obvious you have a lack of LP knowledge. Ever hear of coil taps? The Jimmy Page wiring? A 50s neck cost the same as a 60s neck. What about a historic baseball bat neck? The LP Elegant with a compound radius?

O.K. LP fans, fire at will.

Done.
 
Last edited:
Re: Why I prefer Strats to Les Pauls

Only a dumb ass busts a headstock. If you aren't smart enough to take care of a guitar, so be it.

Bolt on necks = cheap IMO. Cheap in TONE.

If you buy the correct guitar in the first place, why would you need interchangeability? And you can get a variety of LP necks. First ones were 1 piece mahogany. Then there are three piece mahogany (1970 - 1976). Then 3 piece maple (1977 - 1982). There's your variety.

Well, I can't argue with much here. Any halfway reasonable care of a guitar & you're not breaking necks & headstocks. If you can't manage that, maybe guitars aren't the right instrument for you. I also fail to see any benefit to swapping necks; get one that you really like and...swap it for one you don't like as well? I don't think interchangable necks had anything to do with Leo's decision to use bolt-ons, that was strictly a cost-saving measure, as were many of the features on Strats & Teles.

Like one post here said, Leo succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, and he deserves credit for making the world's most popular guitar design. That's a huge accomplishment. But his goal was to make electric guitars significantly cheaper than his rivals; be careful when you start to credit him things beyond that. He couldn't possibly have foreseen what players like Hendrix were able to do with Strats many years down the road. No one could have. Just as Les Paul had no clue as to what Jimmy Page would be able to do with a LP.

Anyone preferring a Fender, more power to you. Those that like both camps, or prefer Gibson designs have just as much justification for their choices. Show us some respect. Yeah, it;s fun to debate this periodically, but when it gets down to it, it's what you do with a guitar that matters; it's the hands not the tools. We choose what tool we like best, and there is no right or wrong. Blow us away with your playing, and you have our respect.
 
Re: Why I prefer Strats to Les Pauls

I like electric guitars.
collected.jpg
 
Back
Top