charlie brown Posted August 22, 2015 Author Share Posted August 22, 2015 Of all Gibsons I think they are the most underrated compared to how good they are to play.... And PRS made a whole business out of that shape ;) Also, out of interest.. I know you are a huge SG nut.. so how do you think the upper fret access and balance compare between a DC special and an SG? Because of the way the SG neck is attached, and how the horn area recedes (back or down, depending on how you think about it), the SG still gets my vote, for ease of upper fret access! BUT, the Double Cut is a VERY CLOSE 2nd, in that regard! Cheers, CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dino_j Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 In my guess the main reason is that SGs are mostly loved by experienced and seasoned players. These typically have less questions, less excitement, less complaints, and thus less to share and post about. They know what they want and why. I'd say that's a fair assessment of my mentality. SGs may be Gibson's best sold, but most guitar players (that prefer Gibsons, of course) drool over the Les Paul. It seems to be THE guitar to strive for. Perhaps all those famous players like Jimmy Page, Slash, etc. have something to do with it. But I think the SG gets a bit of a bad rap because everyone knows that Mr. Les Paul himself disliked the instrument and had his name taken off of it. So back to my mentality. I would play a Les Paul if I wanted one. When I am asked by people why I play the SG I tell them everything I love about the instrument. I guess I do that a lot more face to face than I do on user forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobF_ Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 The only reason I don't have an SG is because there is no pin on the upper horn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capmaster Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 The only reason I don't have an SG is because there is no pin on the upper horn This concern is a quite serious one. I wrote about it in the 3rd paragraph of my post #10 in this thread - I quote myself here: "Anyway, seasoned and less seasoned players usually like the neck sightly sloping upwards. This isn't a problem with SGs having their upper strap button mounted sideways to the upper horn like the Tony Iommi Signature. Although basically allowing for a convenient neck slope, the typical button position at the neck joint's back shifts the upper strap end towards the center of gravity - the neck will dive." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobF_ Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 This concern is a quite serious one. I wrote about it in the 3rd paragraph of my post #10 in this thread - I quote myself here: "Anyway, seasoned and less seasoned players usually like the neck sightly sloping upwards. This isn't a problem with SGs having their upper strap button mounted sideways to the upper horn like the Tony Iommi Signature. Although basically allowing for a convenient neck slope, the typical button position at the neck joint's back shifts the upper strap end towards the center of gravity - the neck will dive." The body of every guitar I've owned/played with the pin at the neck joint tries to fall away from me. Moving the pin to the back of the upper horn shouldn't pose any serious problems. I'm all set to try one out on my next visit to civilization. Thanks a lot, CB ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveFord Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 See post below. Outsmarted by the computer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveFord Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 If my memory serves me well, the SG body shape was introduced towards the tail end of Les Paul's contract with Gibson. His popularity as a recording artist was on the wane and he was also getting divorced from his wife. While he may not have cared for the guitar itself, I'm sure he liked the royalty payments just fine. The Les Paul name was removed from the head stock when his contract came to an end and Gibson chose not to renew it. If you read page 92 here https://books.google.com/books?id=rogO4vkRrYcC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=ted+mccarty+gibson+sg&source=bl&ots=6sLHN3nrIR&sig=G6mi7p1WxvE9qlcn3DArgLQ-Jv8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CFIQ6AEwCTgKahUKEwio9tOlob_HAhXGNz4KHadrCFE#v=onepage&q=ted%20mccarty%20gibson%20sg&f=false it gives a different version where Les Paul chose not to renew the contract. He said, she said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dino_j Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 If my memory serves me well, the SG body shape was introduced towards the tail end of Les Paul's contract with Gibson. His popularity as a recording artist was on the wane and he was also getting divorced from his wife. While he may not have cared for the guitar itself, I'm sure he liked the royalty payments just fine. The Les Paul name was removed from the head stock when his contract came to an end and Gibson chose not to renew it. If you read page 92 here https://books.google...on%20sg&f=false it gives a different version where Les Paul chose not to renew the contract. He said, she said. Thanks for the additional info, and I do think it's possible Les wanted his name off the guitar so he wouldn't have additional 'future' income to consider in his divorce? Possible. I saw a pretty good documentary on him a while ago, had forgotten his divorce to Mary Ford was around that time. In any case, I do think it's public knowledge that despite the particulars, and whatever the reasons, he did not like the SG as much as the Les Paul. I think this fact creates a lot of bias in players' minds. To the players that know and love the guitar, that's a non-issue, and we've also dealt with any neck balance issues, nut issues, etc. and maybe there's just not a lot left to discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted August 23, 2015 Author Share Posted August 23, 2015 Well, maybe? But, what is there really, to discuss about "Les Paul's," save maybe the different tops, colors, and binding or no binding. They have their own "tone" bias, as do the SG's. And, both can have different voicing, with different pickups! So, seems to me, there's just as much to discuss, about SG's as there is about Les Paul's. Yet, the SG section of the forum is nowhere close to the Les Paul section, in terms of "love" and discussion...even in terms of redundancy. So... But, I LOVE them both, no doubt about it! CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveFord Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Last night I gave a listen to Blue Oyster Cult's "Tyranny and Mutation" and there's your classic, stinging SG sound. Later on Buck went to a Les Paul and then a Strat and then a Steinburger or whatever they are but there is just no mistaking that killer sound that only SGs bring about. You could come close with some other models (I was thinking Lucille and the VariTone) but if you want that killer sound, you really need one of those skinny guitars with the Devil's horns. A Les Paul just won't nail it. Having said that, I have a Les Paul but no SG at the moment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted August 23, 2015 Author Share Posted August 23, 2015 Last night I gave a listen to Blue Oyster Cult's "Tyranny and Mutation" and there's your classic, stinging SG sound. Later on Buck went to a Les Paul and then a Strat and then a Steinburger or whatever they are but there is just no mistaking that killer sound that only SGs bring about. You could come close with some other models (I was thinking Lucille and the VariTone) but if you want that killer sound, you really need one of those skinny guitars with the Devil's horns. A Les Paul just won't nail it. Having said that, I have a Les Paul but no SG at the moment! You will, my son, you will! CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobF_ Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Well, maybe? But, what is there really, to discuss about "Les Paul's," save maybe the different tops, colors, and binding or no binding. They have their own "tone" bias, as do the SG's. And, both can have different voicing, with different pickups! So, seems to me, there's just as much to discuss, about SG's as there is about Les Paul's. Yet, the SG section of the forum is nowhere close to the Les Paul section, in terms of "love" and discussion...even in terms of redundancy. So... But, I LOVE them both, no doubt about it! CB Don't forget nibs!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveFord Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 My first Gibson was an SG Standard from around 1973 and it was just a tremendous guitar. None of the other SGs I've had came close to that one and I think it's still floating around the NJ/Philadelphia area. I could have sworn I saw my old guitar at the Philly show two years back. Don't you worry, I'll have another SG. I know just the one I want, too! If I remember correctly, no binding but the sound was just great on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveFord Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 I'm surprised that no one has put forth the proposition that the reason behind Les Paul's divorce was the introduction of the SG body shape. Lester: I hate it, why, you could poke your eyes out on the points to say nothing of injuring your hand when you go up to the higher frets. Why didn't Gibson consult me on this one? I'm going to ring up McCarty first thing tomorrow morning! Mary: Oh, Lester, quit being such a square. That clunky old shape is for fuddy duddies. I think it's "rad" and what those evil horns do to me, well, I saw Ken playing one last night ... It was all downhill from there. And that explains Mr. Paul's antipathy to Gibson's most popular guitar. So what if I made it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dino_j Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 I'm surprised that no one has put forth the proposition that the reason behind Les Paul's divorce was the introduction of the SG body shape. Lester: I hate it, why, you could poke your eyes out on the points to say nothing of injuring your hand when you go up to the higher frets. Why didn't Gibson consult me on this one? I'm going to ring up McCarty first thing tomorrow morning! Mary: Oh, Lester, quit being such a square. That clunky old shape is for fuddy duddies. I think it's "rad" and what those evil horns do to me, well, I saw Ken playing one last night ... It was all downhill from there. And that explains Mr. Paul's antipathy to Gibson's most popular guitar. So what if I made it up. Great theory! Love it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dino_j Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 Maybe, they're too busy playing them, to bother posting about them? CB I like this explanation the best. Just finished practicing on mine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skilsaw Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 I'm surprised that no one has put forth the proposition that the reason behind Les Paul's divorce was the introduction of the SG body shape. Lester: I hate it, why, you could poke your eyes out on the points to say nothing of injuring your hand when you go up to the higher frets. Why didn't Gibson consult me on this one? I'm going to ring up McCarty first thing tomorrow morning! Mary: Oh, Lester, quit being such a square. That clunky old shape is for fuddy duddies. I think it's "rad" and what those evil horns do to me, well, I saw Ken playing one last night ... It was all downhill from there. And that explains Mr. Paul's antipathy to Gibson's most popular guitar. So what if I made it up. Repeat it often enough and it becomes the truth! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobF_ Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 Repeat it often enough and it becomes the truth! Yep, three independent sites will swear it's true, all citing Steve's post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zentar Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 Gibson will be coming out with a new model with integral 3-legged guitar stand. You just press a button on the controls and the 3 legs pop out. This will eliminate the broken head stock issue. In 2017 they come out with a Red(better dead than red) model for undercover DHS agents. This model has 4 propellers w/camera which functions as a drone for spying on unsuspecting citizens in the audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted August 24, 2015 Author Share Posted August 24, 2015 I remember, initially, after getting my first SG in nearly 40 years ('61 Reissue "Satin" finish), at nearly and Epiphone price, too (THANK YOU, E.M Shorts)...that I had a bit of a "getting used to" the neck being so "long!" As you know, it's actually the exact same length, and scale, as a Les Paul, or ES-335, but just LOOKS a lot longer, at first. I kept messing up, where I'd go, for leads and chords, thinking I "should" be lower (or, higher) on the neck. Just a visual illusion, obviously. But, it was a bit unnerving, for a short period of time. Especially, since I hadn't really played one, in 40 years. AFTER I got used to it, I then found it hard to put it down! And, still do! SO NICE looking and feeling, and that great SG "tone!" I bought the other 3, to go with it, as they came out, within the next 10 month period! So, I (definitely) went "SG Crazy" during that time! But, I have NO regrets, whatsoever. CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM2112 Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 First, I'm a bit late to this thread, and I have not had a chance to read all the posts except for CB's initial post. So, I'm probably going to rehash some things that have already been posted I think the SG sells better than the Les Paul primarily because of the price difference. The Les Paul has always been a more expensive guitar, and Gibson is typically more expensive than other guitar makers. So, most people buy according to price, and the SG is ONE HECK of a value. You get way more guitar for the money than any other guitar. When it comes to ease of handling and playability, how can you beat an SG? You cant'. It's light weight, easy to handle, and what's considered the "dusty end of the fret board" for the Les Paul is suddenly playable on the SG. Tone-wise, it kicks butt! When I play hard rock tunes my LP's get put away and the SG Standard comes out. With the 490/498 pick ups it's got that tight hard rock growl that no other guitar has. The Les Paul can never replace the SG, and vice versa, and that's a good thing because both guitars compliment each other, and any player should have at least have one of each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkesman Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 Very succinctly put, and I couldn't agree more! But the look has something to do with it too. They just look bl**dy great, IMO. As someone said earlier, the 'Devil's horns' have a real appeal to some people (me included). I'm sure it's nothing to do with Iommi! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted August 30, 2015 Author Share Posted August 30, 2015 Yeah, having BOTH, is Great...if you have that option. My initial foray, into my own Gibson guitars, included a '68 Black LP Custom, and a '68 SG Standard (Cherry). I loved them BOTH, for their differences, really. They can sound "similar," but I do love the SG's more cutting mid-range, when I need it! So, it's all good! CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HEADKNOCKER Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 The "Most Popular" Gibson will always be a "Les Paul" & that's not taking anything away from the SG even if it is a LP Model.. I'd say 5 LPs are sold for every 1 SG, But I'm making that # up BUT?? My ole Buddy Mr. Bunn has a SG Forum Only somewhere that is really the bees knees, I'll have to look it up & share the link.. Toni Iommi & Angus Young Freaks I'm gonna build & paint one of these some day for my own pleasure.. "The Fool" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted August 30, 2015 Author Share Posted August 30, 2015 Well, I think you'd have to thank Micheal Bloomfield, Eric Clapton, and some other's, for that! At the end of 1960, you practically couldn't give away a "Les Paul!" I know, because several dealers, back then had "Fire sales," trying to liquidate their Les Paul stocks, for CHEAP! Hence the "redesign" to the SG shape, to try to gain back some of the market share, from Fender's Strat, and Telecaster. The Les Paul may be "the most popular Gibson NOW," but the SG has been in constant production, since it's inception. The Les Paul was out of production, for 7 years, resuming production for the 1968 model year. CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.