Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Macmutt

Members
  • Content Count

    97
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Macmutt

  1. This post was directed just at the one who bought a weight relieved Gibson.

    The only thing you are passionately doing is telling them they don`t own a real Gibson,

    in hopes they will check out the one you mentioned and well, not being weight relieved I`ll buy that instead.

    If you really wanted Gibson`s attention, you would have written, e-mailed or called them directly.

    I call A Troll A Troll... A Shill A Shill... It is what it is.

     

    This post is in Gibson's forum, and i was hoping one or more Gibson employees might read it and get the subtle message, it wasn't directed towards individual players, regardless of what you think or what name you call me.

  2. That was not a very good response, Troll... [laugh]

    Or should I say shill.

     

    Hey whatever man, you want to resort to name calling go right ahead, but i'm not, i'm just a guy that loves good ol' fashion craftsmanship and i express my self passionately about it,

    sometimes too passionately, but hey whatever, we all love playing what we play, but this post was directed at Gibson in the hopes they would some day change things, not individual guitar players that bought weight relieved guitars,

    i don't care what others play, like i said if it makes you happy that's all that matters.

  3. I have played many 2015s and can't stand the wider fretboard. Just doesn't feel right to me and I have spent a considerable amount of time trying them in the store. I don't have a problem with strings going over the edges and I think any guitarist with good vibrato and bending techniques would say the same.

     

    The short tenon isn't noticeable to you but 9 holes are? Short tenon is a cost cutting measure. Why doesn't that bother you? Your thought process here is flawed and quite laughable. Long tenon is it is a better wood-to-wood joint that is supposed to result in better sustain. Now, your short tenon Les Paul may have good sustain but it could theoretically be better if you had a proper neck joint. Something you will never know and can never prove.

     

    It's funny. You came on this board bashing other people's guitars for something stupid, guitars they like and spent their hard earned money on, because they aren't to your liking. I look down my nose at your 2015 the same way you look at look at theirs. It's not a true Les Paul no matter what you think.

     

    My Les Paul is a TRUE SOLID BODY GUITAR, it doesn't have any holes drilled in it nor does it have routered chambers, but others here have to try and find something about it to tear apart so they mention the wider fretboard being a bad thing.

     

    I don't exactly know how having more room to bend strings turned into a bad thing but, i guess the same cry babies that originally whined about the old Les Pauls being too heavy have made their ways into this forum, and now have nothing better to do then tear apart my guitar, but hey whatever.

     

    Facts are facts and they can't be changed if anyone here has a Les Paul with traditional or modern weight relief then it's not a true Les Paul...sorry, but you don't need my approval so why do you care so much that you want to tear down another players guitar?

    If your enjoying your Gibson then thats all that matters.

     

    All i've done is voice my opinion in the hopes that someone from Gibson will read it and maybe second guess the whole weight relief thing some day, but i don't think that'll happen now, because i'm easily out numbered by younger gen guitarists who don't care about build quality anymore, so what are you guys whining about ? you won, but my opinion will never change and thats my business you play what ever you want.

     

    Just keep something in mind there are semi hollow and hollow bodies in Gibson's line right now with weight relieved bodies....ok...the guitars are already hollow, what the heck are they doing ?..and if you still won't admit that their cutting corners with that, then i give up.

  4. If you want to buy scrap wood put together with Elmer`s glue, that is your choice.

     

    I will buy a real Gibson Les Paul every time! [thumbup]

     

    Sales slow and not taking off? :-k A-lot of scrap wood laying around? [scared]

     

    OP :---)

     

    I have a real Gibson Les Paul, and by the way when i say real i mean REAL not chambered or weight relieved in any way...i doubt you can say the same.

  5. You obviously missed my previous questions about specific weights of specific guitars so I'll ask again but a bit louder this time so you don't have any excuses about not hearing the questions;

     

     

     

    Looking forward to reading your answers.

     

    Pip.

     

    i haven't put my guitar on a scale if thats what your asking, but my guess would be 7 to 9lbs at least.

  6. Well, you sure showed us...

     

    What it shows is, that luckily there are still people out there that believe that it's pointless to drill or router holes in a flawless hard wood guitar body.

     

    Gibson used to know that, and it would be hilarious if someone like these CMG guitar guy's or another start up guitar maker came along and utilized all the old school traditions that luthiers of 50 plus years ago used to, before preprogrammed cnc machines came along and removed a pound of wood, and new guys like these surpassed Gibson in sound and build quality, then maybe the big boys would see whats really important.

  7. I know 2015 specs quite well. Wider fretboard, flat neck, short tenon, robot tuners, horrible headstock front and back. That's more of an abomination than 9 holes that make no difference and that you can't see.

     

    This is hilarious. Weight relief or contoured heels are bad in your mind but a historically wrong wider fretboard and short tenon is acceptable? What you call innovation I call garbage. You're calling everything but a pure '50s LP crap yet you own the farthest thing from a real one.

     

    The wider fingerboard is an improvement over the older narrow one that you couldn't even bend up or down on the high or low E string without going over the edge, as for the Geforce tuning, it's been replaced with locking Grovers, as for the short tenon it's not all that noticeable to me, by the way you forgot the zero fret adjustable brass nut which i happen to value above all other nuts since you can adjust the action with a mere turn of an allen wrench.

    I did not bash all innovations i have been bashing the removal of good hard wood from a beautiful instrument because it simply wasn't necessary. all i can say is, play one for yourself.

     

    I wasn't sold by looking at the guitar or reading about it on some website, i did my research on the specs, read and watched countless reviews and then i went and held and played it for myself, and it was a mind blowing experience, and now i have the best of both worlds a guitar with the exact innovations that i love such as the wider fretboard and titanium saddles, and zero fret nut, with 59 reissue pickups, all combined with a SOLID body through and through and it looks, plays and sounds great.

  8. Here is a Spec list from these CMG guitar guy's LOL i love it i might have to buy my next guitar from these guy's, they continue to make my argument for me.

     

    Specs include:

    Nut Width 1-11/16th inch, 24.75" scale

    Indian Rosewood Fretboard Radius: 12"

    Nut Material: GraphTech NuBone

    Back body comfort contour

    Grover 18:1 tuners

    Natural wood binding

    NO tone killing swiss cheese holes

    NO printed circuit boards- hand wired like a late 50's LP, Bourn Pots

    NO silly auto tune- "Ya gotta tune it yourself."

     

    From a CMG Ashlee model for sale on Reverb.com

  9. Macmutt, what kind of Les Paul do you have anyways? Maybe it was already mentioned but I didn't read all the replies.

     

    If you own a solid Traditional, you don't have long tenon. If you own an older reissue, you have a truss rod sheath and no Brazilian. If you have a 2013/newer reissue, you still don't have Brazilian. Long tenon, Brazilian roswood, no truss rod sheath. These are equally as important as solid mahogany if you want to stay true to the original Les Paul formula.

     

    So, I'll let you in on a little secret. Unless you have a Les Paul made before 1962, or a replica, your guitar is as equal flawed as the ones you are bashing.

     

    The following was written by a new American guitar company called CMG Guitars, and frankly i could not have put it better myself, it says it all and proves the point i'm trying to make, and to answer your question i own a 2015 Gibson Les Paul Traditional, feel free to check the specs on their website.

     

    While some companies are innovating just to create a new product to sell, we innovate only when it benefits the player.

    You won’t see us change the spec on a guitar to accommodate bad technique. Instead, we innovate the instrument to make it subservient to the player.

    The guitar should feel like an extension of you - you shouldn’t have to fight it to get what you want.

  10. Oh, I am glad to meet a real expert of Gibson guitars.

     

    Let me grab this opportunity. I have been trying long to find out which brand of nitrocellulose lacquer Gibson used in the 70s and around 2010.

     

    Could You please help me with this?

     

    Bence.

     

    I can't give you an exact year Gibson went from polyurethane to nitrocellulose, but yes it was in the late 70's when they switched i believe, and as far as i know they still do Nitrocellulose finish to this day where as PRS and Fender do not.

     

    However if you have more specifics that i am unaware of i would be very happy to learn about it, after all i said i am well informed, but not the end all authority of guitar knowledge, so by all means tell me the specifics, i would be glad to learn.

  11. I know for a fact that at least six of those who have replied either currently own or have in the past owned solid-bodied Les Pauls and feel no such need to defend weight-relief in the slightest. The first Les Paul I owned was a (solid-bodied) mid- '70s Custom which I bought over 30 years ago and it was crap.

     

    Currently I have two solid and two Swiss-cheesed and can probably speak from a far better-informed, far more experienced and far less bigoted position on the matter of weight-relief than you can.

     

    [smile]

     

    Pip.

     

    So now it's considered bigotry to want a once solid instrument to stay solid because i love the tone of the old solid bodies so much ?

     

    I am 47 years old and have been playing Gibson's for 25 years, my older brother is 54 years old and has been playing Gibson's for 40 years and unlike most players who learn to play the guitar, but don't even have enough guitar knowledge to change their own strings or adjust a neck properly, my brother and i chose to learn and love every aspect of the guitar, where the woods are sourced from, which woods are used in which models and years for each model, the kind of pickups that each model has used through the years, how to work on our guitars ourselves and make all adjustments, and most of all how to love and consider our guitars an extension of our bodies, both while were playing and when we're not.

    So i assure you i am VERY WELL INFORMED, and not a bigot, but truly passionate about the way instruments are made, and the way corporations butcher them to save a buck.

  12. I agree. And any Les Paul that doesn't have the upside down, unplayable trapeze that the first ones had isn't a real Les Paul either.

     

    And Humbuckers. Bloody things, the first Les Paul guitars had p90's so if yours has Humbuckers it isnt a Les Paul.

     

    Plain maple must, of course, be used. All this flame wasn't original to Les Paul guitars so it's wrong.

     

    Clear nitro is a no no too. All solid colours must be used or it isn't a real Les Paul.

     

    Pup rings. Nope.

     

    Steel strings. Nope (and they do make a difference).

     

    Your sarcasm might be good for a laugh but if you yourself are not a traditionalist when it comes to guitars thats fine.

    I on the other hand will complain when i think companies are cutting corners to save a buck, especially if it's on such a beloved instrument, that never needed much improvement since it's 58 issue.

    AGAIN " IF IT'S NOT BROKE, DON'T FIX IT ".

    All of a sudden mother of pearl inlays, too much money Gibson switches to acrylic, Bone nut, too much money, Gibson switches to Corian and Plastic, Rosewood Fretboards lawsuits and cost increase, Gibson switches to baked maple and Richlite composite, Copper shielding in electronics chambers, too much money, Gibson switches to copper spray paint.

    Too many short cuts and cheap replacements have been messed with on and off over the years in the name of keeping costs down, cutting an entire pound of wood from the guitar body of a Les Paul is just one corner i don't think musicians should let Gibson cut.

  13. I can't help but think a lot of these replies contradicting my belief in my original post is coming from players that are either too young to know what their talking about, say 25 to 30 years of age, or it's coming from players that were duped into buying a weight relieved Les Paul and now that they know that, they feel obligated to defend their instrument.

     

    Well all i'll say is if you love your weight relieved Les Paul the way it is, then thats great, you should, you spent a lot of money on it, BUT IT'S NOT A TRUE LES PAUL, whether you want to admit it or not is your own battle with denial.

     

    However today calling a modern weight relieved Les Paul a TRUE Les Paul, would be like referring to an IPOD as a fully equipped stereo system, it's not....it's that simple.

  14. Your reasoning makes no sense...

     

    All of those guitarists would have sounded good no matter what guitar they used, weight relieved or not....

     

    What about all the other factors involved.. Amps, mics, mixing desk, analogue tape recorders... Surely that would have more of an effect on the sound than if it were weight relieved...?

     

    And again, its mostly down to the players style and technique.... NOT how solid their guitars were...

     

    Do you know anything about guitar components and wood tones and variances in sustain ?, The guitarists abilities has NOTHING to do with the tone of their guitars, yes now a days you can get an FX station or pedal board and EQ setup and get just about any tone you want regardless of what guitar your using, but that's not what i'm saying.

     

    Mahogany and Maple are very hard dense woods, and when combined they produce a warm rich and long sustaining tone that is unmistakeable when directly plugged into any amp.

     

    The exact original design, shape and thickness of the Les Paul brought out the best tonal quality and sustain from that wood combination, more so than any other guitar maker has been able to do when using the same wood, which is why a PRS with a mahogany and maple body and it's dual humbuckers does not sound like a solid Les Paul.

     

    It was perfect just the way it was, and it still can be, if they just stop taking chunks of wood out of it.

  15. Macmutt,

     

    I get where you are coming from, really I do.

    And I agree with some of the spirit of your posting, if not the letter.

     

    But in the end, markets evolve, players grow older, and younger players come onto the scene.

    Things change.

     

    Many of today's American-made automobiles are the best ever made, with regard to safety, fuel economy, clean emissions, modern technologies, and really cool features.

     

    But they will never be a 1955 Chevrolet Bel Air.

    They will never be quite like a 1959 Cadillac Sedan De Ville.

    Or a 1972 Oldsmobile 442.

     

    I really dig my new Suzuki motorcycle.

    But it's not as cool and funky as the ones I grew up riding in the early 1970's.

     

    I had a 1971 Gibson Les Paul Deluxe gold top.

    I don't remember that much about it (I sold it when I went off into the Army), but I do remember it was heavy.

     

    I owned, and then years later sold, a 1996 Gibson Les Paul Studio, in black and gold.

    It was heavy, and I never played it all that much.

    I sold it a few years ago, and was glad to have gotten fair market value for it.

     

    I now own a 2001 Gibson Les Paul Studio copper top.

    I love it, but it's heavy, and so I don't play it as often as I might.

    I really dig it, but sometimes I wish it were lighter.

     

    Please don't misinterpret the push-back (and even open animosity) you have encountered in response to your original posting as personal criticism.

    It's not.

    It's just that we all want what we want, and what I want isn't necessarily what you particularly crave.

     

    I like petite, small-breasted women with dark eyes and brunette hair.

    Some guys like large, curvy gals with enormous tittties and bleach-blonde locks.

    None of us are wrong exactly, we just like what we like, and it's all good.

     

    :mellow:

     

    I get what your saying man, i appreciate your honest reply, and truth be told my Les Paul is probably the heaviest guitar i've ever played, but the tones and sound of the songs i nail with it, makes it all worth it, and i'm just a firm believer in " IF IT'S NOT BROKE DON'T FIX IT ", so i can't help but get outraged when i go on Gibson's website and compare the specs of a solid body Les Paul against the specs of a modern weight relieved Les Paul only discover that the weight relieved model is one pound lighter than the solid one......Think about that, a WHOLE POUND of wood cut from the guitar, why ? for what ? so it's a bit less straining on the back or to save Gibson money where ever they can, what ever the reason, i just don't think it's worth it.

  16. I have always found this to be one of the most arrogant debates one could choose to have.

     

    If Gibson said it's a Les Paul then it's a Les Paul. No one else's opinion matters.

     

    If I make a pickup and call it a CheezeBall no one else has any right to tell me how I have to make it or what I can't change about the CheezeBall from one production year to the next.

     

    WHAT ????, No.....WRONG, they said it was a Les Paul when it was introduced in the 50's with it's original construction of solid mahogany and maple.

     

    Now over time, yes things change like different sounding pickups, more advanced tuning, lesser or different grades of wood, those are things we cannot help as advances and or certain grades of wood become more scarce.

     

    However the original design and combination of solid mahogany and maple never needed to change, it's what gave the Les Paul it's sustain and warm rich tone, but along come some whiners that when first holding the Les Paul began complaining about their backs, and obviously they whined loud enough and long enough for Gibson to start drilling holes,and thus beginning the whole alteration and butchering of the guitar with the weight relief crap.

  17. Also just to add to that..

     

    You do realise that LPs have been weight relieved since about 1983 when Henry took over...

     

    So you are talking about like 90% odd of all Les Pauls ever made (cos some have been non weight relieved over the years) since 1983 are all rubbish cos they have weight relief... Sorry, that's just nonsense...

     

    Where do you get 90% of all Les Pauls from 1983 to date, Les Pauls have been in production since the mid 50's, and have remained solid bodies up until 83, not to mention the odd number of reissues and Traditional's that offered no weight relief, so there are far more solid bodies out there than you think.

     

    Plus those artists i named have been playing SOLID Les Pauls from the late 60's and all through the 70's, right up until they started screwing them up with the 9 drill holes in 83.

  18. After thinking and rethinking about getting a 2016 model i took and ordered a les paul standard 2016 t .

    I didnt take the High Performance model even if its really a beautiful guitar i prefer the traditional specs on the guitar and classic feel of a real

    les paul standard so i hope to have it this weekend or next week im really looking forward to that! :)

    Altough i heard some negative things about the finishes is that truth?

     

    Sorry to rain on your parade, but as i posted in this forum just minutes ago, if your buying a Les Paul with Modern Weight relief than it's not a TRUE Les Paul, most people may disagree but thats how i feel about it.

    A les Paul should be a solid guitar and not have pockets of wood routered out of it just to save on weight.

     

    Hope you enjoy it, but you said you went for the more Traditional model so you sound like someone who actually cares about Tradition, and if thats true, then return the one you ordered and try and track down a 2015 Traditional model, it has NO weight relief what so ever, it's as solid as they used to be.

  19. Before anyone jumps all over me about the title and opinion of this post, just think about it for a minute.

     

    The infamous guitar that put Gibson on the map for decades, was NOT weight relieved, and therefore that sound and that craftsmanship and playability of that sought after instrument was a SOLID mahogany back with a solid maple top and those beautiful Gibson pickups, whether 59's P.A.F.'s or even Burstbuckers is the sound we all know and love, from early Allman Brothers, Frampton, Skynyrd, Aerosmith, even some early Clapton.

     

    All those artists had the Les Pauls with SOLID bodies, not chambered, not with 9 holes drilled out or any modern weight relief, and the sad part is that kids learning guitar today will never know or care that their not playing a TRUE Les Paul, their playing three quarters of one.

    Now to make matters worse in the 2016 line up they have shaved off the heel of the Les Paul for easier access to the higher notes......oh great just what the Les Paul needed even more wood taken out of it.

     

    If you want easier access than buy an SG, the chopping and mutilating of this gorgeous mahogany from this once legendary instrument is, in my opinion a disgrace, and although Gibson now offers choices of a shaven heel standard and a traditional heel standard in 2016, that is no great deal because both are still weight relieved bodies, and the one with the shaven heel is hailed as the superior, more advanced model, so thats going to be shown at every forefront of every website, magazine, catalog and trade show ad that Gibson is advertising in for the year.

     

    Am i the only one who thinks that this is an atrocity and butchering of a once phenomenal and quite possibly thee most legendary guitar on the planet ? I say make all Gibson guitars with NO weight relief and if they want to make a model with the shaven heel then go ahead.

    Then if some players are being cry babies and start whining about the weight or the access, then they should look at SG's. and leave the Les Pauls and their original spec of having a SOLID body alone.

     

    Now a days when i see all these so called innovations or improvements i shake my head in disgust, and then thank my lucky stars i was smart enough to buy and hold on to a SOLID body Les Paul with NO weight relief and that classic sound.

     

    Thank god i don't have the time or resources right now to go to the Gibson factory, because i would get any and all responsible for this weight relief crap in one room and scream at the top of my lungs at them to let them know to STOP, your screwing up one of the best guitars on the planet, and i guarantee you those business men in charge of these decisions who are cutting corners with these so called weight relief innovations are NOT players, just business men watching there bottom line and counting the dollars and cutting costs wherever they can, just to save a buck.

     

    I know young minds bring new ideas, ok hence the Geforce tuning, the zero fret nut, and removable pick guard, those are all good OPTIONS to have, none should be mandatory but all good innovations, just leave the original Les Paul construction alone....PLEASE !!!!

  20. I bought the Ocean blue 2016 SG Supreme, however i had serious problems with the strap peg being placed on the upper bout.

    Since i always stand & play this new strap peg placement threw the balance off a lot for me.

     

    About 23 years ago i had surgery on my left leg, they removed an egg yolk size tumor from my shin bone and scraped away part of the bone in the process, then shot it with radiation for 6 weeks, any way the end result of that is today when i'm forced to put weight on it for a long period of time it throbs like crazy.

    So when i tried to adjust for the balance of this new strap peg location, i kept having to put my weight on my bad left leg, and only after a mere 30 minutes of playing my leg was throbbing, and even my neck was stiffening slightly.

     

    Now i have other guitars such as LP's, Strat's and so on that have had the same weight and placement of the strap pegs that they always had and i don't have any balance or comfort issues with them, even after hours of standing and playing, so this new placement of the SG Supreme strap peg is not a good idea I.M.O.

    The end result was having to trade it in for something else....i just could not find my comfort zone, i was doing more adjusting of the strap and guitar then i was playing, and it never did any good.

    Even if i never had that issue with my leg, i still would be constantly adjusting the strap and guitar during jam sessions and it wouldn't do any good.

     

    If you can't go off to that other place while playing some smooth, moving leads, because your busy adjusting for comfort, then that guitar it isn't worth keeping.

  21. Before I rant, I picked up one of the last SGJ in vintageburst from Zzounds and am just floored at hkw awesome it sounds and plays. I've had it 2 weeks now and I am convinced that 2013&2014 SG's are some of the best.

     

    Now....2016. We SG lovers were slighted. 2 very standard offerings, and a special which is basically a 2012 rehash. I was really hoping for a return to an SG li e that was beefed up with tributes and inovative offerings.......but nope. Oh well....hopefully 2017 will see some expansion. What would you like to see?

     

    Sorry i don't agree, My 2016 SG Supreme Limited Edition is the guitar i've been waiting for all my life and for that i think 2016 is the SG's best lineup to date.

  22. I was just drooling over these on the Gibson and Sweetwater sites. So, I need to know:

    How do you like the Richlite FB?

    How that do you like the neck profile?

    How does the neck profile compare to other SG's you've played?

    How do the Burstbucker Pro's sound in this?

    I think the blue looks killer. But I have two blue guitars and only one black one. So if I was to get one of these I'd probably go black to even things out.

    I need to be pragmatic with my gas!

    I gotta' admit I was worried about the Richlite fingerboard because I always preferred the softness of rosewood, but the Richlite doesn't even feel as hard as ebony, and after some research I discovered Martin has been using it for years because Richlite is a composite material and it basically never wears down like wood.

    As far as the neck profile, I've always preferred slim taper above all else, and it feels as fast and smooth on this, as it does on my Midtown standard, Gibson even moved the position of the strap peg from behind the neck heel to the back of the upper bout, which I actually prefer, they smoothed the neck heel even with the body so it appears as the neck and body is one long piece of mahogany.....I like this neck profile the best, never been a fan of the rounded baseball bat profile, the thinner the better I.m.o.

    The burst buckers sound amazing in this beauty, much better than the 57 classics I used to have in a previous SG I had that has since been sold.

    This SG is only offered in the blue and red finish I believe, so if you wanted black you would have to be an SG standard.

    Hope I answered all your questions, thanks for the nice comments.

  23. I dont have an SG but if I did I would want one pretty much like yours.

     

    I like the 24 frets, the Ritchlite fingerboard, the neck inlays, the head binding, and I would always plump for one master vol & tone as the preferred option.

     

    Very very tasty =D> indeed

     

    Well unfortunately it's a limited run so if you were going to get one it would have to be soon...Gibson doesn't make these Limited Editions for too long...Whatever you end up with i hope you get the guitar of your dreams like i did.

×
×
  • Create New...