Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Light LP = Real LP ?


Flamed Froggy

Recommended Posts

I wonder why a lot of people want a light LP. Everyone knows that LP is a heavy guitar so if you change something you change its sound, I guess. IMO if you can't play a heavy guitar you should choose another one. Angus Young has a LP 60 but he plays it only at home because it's too heavy for my favorite dwarf. If never thought that he could play on a light version so he prefers playing a SG. Good idea I think !

 

Well, this is my question : Have you got the same sensations on a chambered LP than on a solid body LP ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as the area near the bridge wasnt affected the LP's sound the same.

Gibson did relentless testing. They knew they couldnt tamper with the Les Paul formula.

Theyd have had alot of people angry at them...

So thats what the tests proved. As long as they stayed away from the bridge area things were

fine. In fact, the holes ( for lack of a better word) actually give the guitar a bit more life.

That combined with the BB Pro's is one sweet combination.

Dont sweat the small stuff...as I have said in the past. Jimmy Page slouched for a reason.

I want to enjoy my guitar for long periods at a time. I dont want to have back, neck and shoulder problems.

Dont let the old school Les Paul fanatics fool you.....They cant tell the diff in sound either.

 

Q...How many old school Les Paul fans does it take to change a lightbulb?

A...Four!

One to change the lightbulb, and three others to stand around talking about how great

the OLD lightbulb used to be!

 

Just a joke guys...ya know I love ya!

 

:D/ :D/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder why a lot of people want a light LP. Everyone knows that LP is a heavy guitar so if you change something you change its sound' date=' I guess. IMO if you can't play a heavy guitar you should choose another one. Angus Young has a LP 60 but he plays it only at home because it's too heavy for my favorite dwarf. If never thought that he could play on a light version so he prefers playing a SG. Good idea I think !

 

Well, this is my question : Have you got the same sensations on a chambered LP than on a solid body LP ?[/quote']

 

After a car rolled over on my head, my neck and upper back won't allow me to hold 12lbs of guitar. Even an 8 pound guitar starts making my upper back tight and sore.

 

I don't play smooth jazz, but my BFG can get me smooth jazz tones, especially with the p90 kickin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q...How many old school Les Paul fans does it take to change a lightbulb?

A...Four!

One to change the lightbulb' date=' and three others to stand around talking about how great

the OLD lightbulb used to be!

 

Just a joke guys...ya know I love ya!

 

:D/ :D/ [/quote']

 

I honestly laughed out loud when I read this. Per-fect.

 

Les Paul fans are a strange mix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding (and feel free to correct any errors in this "folk-lore") is that the original Les Pauls from the 50's weren't all that heavy as they were made from a light mahogany. Was it Cuban or Honduras mahogany? Anyway, when Les Pauls started to be produced again in the late 60's (1968 I think) only much denser & hence heavier mahogany was available/used and the Les Pauls were much heavier than the original Lesters. The cult of the heavy Lester began which continues to this day. The rationale is the heavier the better. Although I don't personally agree with this.

 

The 1958 & 1959 Standard reissues, which I understand DON'T have swiss cheese holes or chambering, (I've played a few, but own 2004 & 2006 Standards myself), are usually not all that heavy as they use the highly sought after but now rare & expensive light mahogany.

 

I don't think it's correct that heavy Les Pauls sound better than lighter ones. My 2004 goldtop weighs over 10 lbs, but my lighter early 2006 built 'burst (about 7.5lbs & non-chambered as far as I'm aware) is the better sounding of he two. And a lot easier on my back !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My '87-'89 LP "Lites" have no chambering, holes or balsa wood centers, they are simply thinner than regular LP's. The maple top is the same, but the mohagany back is roughly 2/3rds the thickness of a normal LP. They also have a body contour on the back, similar to the back of a Strat.

 

To me the benefit is not just lighter weight, the best part is the strings rest closer to me and it is more comfortable to play. They are thin and sleek but the look and most important the tone, is all Les Paul.

 

I realize these LP's are not popular and I couldn't care less. I owned two "normal" LP's before I bought my 1st LP Lite, an '02 Standard Raw Power and a mid 90's Studio. Once I played the LP Lite, I knew I found my perfect guitar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no proven correlation between guitar weight and superior tone, sustain or resonance. Some of the best LPs made in the past few years are the reissues and they are generally lighter than the pre-chambering Gibson USA models. Chambering changes the tone from a little to a lot depending on how it is done, but I have chambered guitars that I will put up against any 10 lb LP. I miss my 1980 LP Pro Deluxe, for it's look and the P-90s, but not it's 12+ LBs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jesse92, you're certainly entitled to your views, but you might like to check out the '58 & '59 re-issues. I actually prefer the '58, but both '58 & '59 re-issues are fantastic sounding & both are noticeably lighter than the pre-chambered Les Pauls.

 

My early 2006 Standard 'burst is fairly light (like the 58 & 59 re-issues) and my fantasy is that there was a mistake at the Gibson factory and I actually got a premium quality light mahogany body (non weight relieved) intended for '58 or '59 re-issue production! Deep down I know it's probably not true. I think the 58 & 59 re-issues are built at Memphis instead of Nashville, so a mix-up is unlikely to occur? But x-raying (as someone in the old Gibson Forum pointed out) is probably the only way to find out tell (viz. if there are weight relief holes). But, until then I'll continue to dream the impossible dream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as the area near the bridge wasnt affected the LP's sound the same.

Gibson did relentless testing. They knew they couldnt tamper with the Les Paul formula.

Theyd have had alot of people angry at them...

So thats what the tests proved. As long as they stayed away from the bridge area things were

fine. In fact' date=' the holes ( for lack of a better word) actually give the guitar a bit more life.

That combined with the BB Pro's is one sweet combination.

Dont sweat the small stuff...as I have said in the past. Jimmy Page slouched for a reason.

I want to enjoy my guitar for long periods at a time. I dont want to have back, neck and shoulder problems.

Dont let the old school Les Paul fanatics fool you.....They cant tell the diff in sound either.[/quote']

 

Agreed 100 percent. I have a 2006 Standard LE, and that guitar is ALIVE when you play it - no excess brightness, no loss of sustain, no thin sound. The guitar is a jewel!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno, the Gibson I just got is probably 3 or even 4 pounds lighter than the Epiphone Les Paul I also have, and it's just as fat sounding as the Epi, maybe moreso. I remember an '80's Studio I had that was pretty heavy, after about an hour with that one I realised I had muscles in my shoulder I'd forgotten I had. And the back of the Gibson is a really light colored mahogany, which goes nice with the gold finish, she's a beaut!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The entire argument over the weight relieved LP's just makes me laugh. The old school purists scoff at them, but I'll bet that a good deal of that point is just parroted noise - they've never actually played more than a few casual notes on one - if they even bothered to play one at all.

 

Most of their argument follows the "I used to walk ten miles to school through six feet of snow" direction. For years, the playing populace whined about how heavy LP's are. Gibson listened. And now the purists "up the irons".....

 

 

Bottom line - it's all about personal choice. If a light weight LP doesn't do it for you, it's all good. Just don't look down your nose and tell me my light weight LP is inferior. The only person my LP has to please is me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think naturally Les Pauls are just viewed as guitars that just NEED to be heavy. Because they're almost all heavy... I've been through tons of guitars, from SG specials and standards, to ES-335's to les paul studios, standards and studio lites. I've played a few customs and obviously everyone will prefer a custom because it just sounds how a guitar should sound... But for someone on a budget that can't afford to spend over 3000 dollars can settle for the more affordable models...

 

Anyway... SG's piss me off. I like the look. They sound kinda bright and punchy but the weight distribution kills me. The body is way too light and falls head first if you're not holding the neck... It's annoying... I sold off all my SG's because of how much that upset me. Between studios and studio lites... there is barely any difference in tone or sustain in the tests I've done.. However... The studio lite just doesn't feel right to me... and the color choices kinda sucked. I had a blue one. And I am not really into blue guitars... I just got it for a little over 300 bucks on ebay and went for it. My LP studio is my preferance. I have the pewter grey one... the one that they had the limited run of in 01. Not the ugly platinum tin man looking one. Anyway... The weight to me is perfect. It sounds solid. And feels like it can take a good amount of abuse. Standards are pretty solid too but I just prefer studios. Price works better too. And it's a good amount of guitar for the money.

 

Oh... and just for the record... I loved my ES... :[ Technically it wasn't mine... but when I had to let her go, I was devastated. They sound so amazing, but they aren't very tough... : Double edged blade. Lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just purchased my first LP recently. It is a Studio in Fireburst. I have always owned a 68 SG, and I also own a 1990 ES335. I have had a 1990 LP Studio on loan for a couple of years at a time through a friend who had trouble staying in one place. This being said I found the new lighter Studio to sound very much like my ES335 in tone. I might just be the pickups but it seems to be very close, and I think it might be the chambering. I also own an Elititst Les Paul custom that is not weight relieved and sounds very similar to my friends older Studio.

So for me to have a guitar that weighs less than most Strats, and is at least a couple of pounds lighter than my ES335 with about the same tone, I think Gibson has nailed it.

Don't get me wrong though I am one of those guys that "admired the old lightbulb" . I am open to new things but I sure would like to pick up an older heavy standard. But the summer season approaches and I have to get new tires to put on my vintage wheel works V45s for my 68 Camaro. Ain't life a *****!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder why a lot of people want a light LP. Everyone knows that LP is a heavy guitar so if you change something you change its sound' date=' I guess. IMO if you can't play a heavy guitar you should choose another one. Angus Young has a LP 60 but he plays it only at home because it's too heavy for my favorite dwarf. If never thought that he could play on a light version so he prefers playing a SG. Good idea I think !

 

Well, this is my question : Have you got the same sensations on a chambered LP than on a solid body LP ?[/quote']

 

 

People over the years (From what I understand older players) have complained about LP's being to heavy and that it hurts their back after a while of playing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...