Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Sorry but Weight relieved Les Pauls are NOT Les Pauls


Macmutt
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Farnsbarns

Believe what you want, but i am 47 years old trying to educate the 15 to 30 year olds of today....and if you read my entire post about going to the guitar tech, you would see that i chose to utilize the free labor coverage in my warranty and take advantage of the sale on the tuners, and it was a good thing i did because if i had damaged it then i would have nothing but a damaged guitar instead of shopping around for new one to replace the one the tech damaged.

 

But you're an expert so why would you have damaged it?

 

There's a word for those who try to 'educate' others without any request to do so (or the ability in your case).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 266
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Macmutt,

 

If you don't mind my saying so, sir, you seem to have painted yourself into a corner here.

 

You could have started this thread out by stating your opinion in a calm, logical, and objective fashion, and then engaged in a reasonable give and take from then on going forward.

To wit;

"Hi fellows. You know, I really prefer the sound of a non-weight relieved Gibson Les Paul. Compared to a weight-relieved LP, I find that the older, original design delivers a more beautiful tone, classic vibe, and (in my opinion), a better sustain. In my heart of hearts, only the older, non-weight-relieved Gibson Les Pauls are true and proper representations of that guitar model. What do you think? Do you agree?"

 

BUT NO.

You came out of the gate with a bull$hit attitude, a debatable hypothesis, and an absurd set of follow-on conclusions.

"Only the old-school, non-weight-relieved Les Pauls are real Les Pauls, and all of you losers who disagree with me are drooling idiots!"

"The sustain is superior, hands down."

"I can tell the difference between weight-relieved and non-weight relieved in a blindfold test, but only under my specific set of conditions, and your conditions are immediately suspect!"

 

Worse yet, you:

* have failed to produce any credible evidence to back up your original claim

* refuse to offer up any videos of you actually playing your awesome, admittedly-heavy guitars

 

and

* you jink and jive like an elementary-school kid on the dodge-ball court whenever a reasonable request is made of you.

 

In short, you are like an old stereo with a record album playing at full volume, and the stylus keeps hitting a deep scratch in the vinyl, going tick-skip, tick-skip, tick-skip.

Loudly.

 

Dude, your opinions are your opinions, and they aren't necessarily right or wrong, until the moment that you make such absurd, declarative statements in an effort to support them.

Oh wait.

You did exactly that in the very first post of this thread.

 

At least i'm not a two faced hypocrite, you came into this forum agreeing with me and understanding my side of things and then when you saw how everyone else was against me, you jumped ship and went on board their band wagon and started preaching from the other side.

 

[unsure][crying] :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you're an expert so why would you have damaged it?

 

There's a word for those who try to 'educate' others without any request to do so (or the ability in your case).

 

Never said i was an " Expert ", i said i knew enough to work on my own guitars, nor do i think that i would've damaged it.

 

I simply utilized a warranty and service contract that i paid a lot of money for, and as it turns out, it's a good thing i did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Farnsbarns

Never said i was an " Expert ", i said i knew enough to work on my own guitars, nor do i think that i would've damaged it.

 

I simply utilized a warranty and service contract that i paid a lot of money for, and as it turns out, it's a good thing i did.

 

Why did you pay a lot of money for a service contract if you're so good and they're so bad?

 

How is it a good thing you did? They damaged your guitar.

 

I've just realised you're confused about age and IQ. It's your IQ that's 47.

 

Ask your big brother to explain the difference. Or your carer.

 

Since you mentioned the physics of it, could you provide the equation which describes the law you mentioned. More mass= more sustain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least i'm not a two faced hypocrite, you came into this forum agreeing with me and understanding my side of things and then when you saw how everyone else was against me, you jumped ship and went on board their band wagon and started preaching from the other side.

 

*sigh*

 

Go back and read, Macmutt.

 

I didn't come into the thread agreeing with you.

I came into this thread with a kind and friendly attitude, and a willingness to understand your side of things.

 

My own words:

“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.”

 

….and then I went on with some great examples of how we all have our own preferences regarding guitars, cars, and whatnot. And how none of us are necessarily wrong, but are rather just entitled to our own opinions.

 

At one point I even declared to the other posters that I didn't agree with the mean-spirited nature of their replies.

 

But, you being you, you weren’t content to just express your opinion.

You had to stress over and over again how your being right meant that everyone else was wrong.

 

I never in my life 'jump ship' on being kind and willing to understand.

And my last post, though highly critical of your postings, was still very much kind and even-handed.

I simply spoke the truth, and the truth apparently stings your delicate sensibilities.

 

(Trust me, sport. If I wanted to go mean-spirited, you would definitely be able to discern the difference in about three seconds flat.)

 

Go back and read, friend.

Read, and take the time to re-evaluate your nonsensical and overly-defensive attitude.

:unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't have it anymore i dropped it off to have the Geforce tuners replaced with klusons while it was still under warranty and the tech accidentally banged the neck up against his workbench and put a nasty ding in the top of the neck

 

 

Wouldn't removing the G-Force tuners void the warranty?

sort of like putting a performance intake on a car and still expecting the manufacturer to warranty the engine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*sigh*

 

Go back and read, Macmutt.

 

I didn't come into the thread agreeing with you.

I came into this thread with a kind and friendly attitude, and a willingness to understand your side of things.

 

My own words:

“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.”

 

….and then I went on with some great examples of how we all have our own preferences regarding guitars, cars, and whatnot. And how none of us are necessarily wrong, but are rather just entitled to our own opinions.

 

At one point I even declared to the other posters that I didn't agree with the mean-spirited nature of their replies.

 

But, you being you, you weren’t content to just express your opinion.

You had to stress over and over again how your being right meant that everyone else was wrong.

 

I never in my life 'jump ship' on being kind and willing to understand.

And my last post, though highly critical of your postings, was still very much kind and even-handed.

I simply spoke the truth, and the truth apparently stings your delicate sensibilities.

 

(Trust me, sport. If I wanted to go mean-spirited, you would definitely be able to discern the difference in about three seconds flat.)

 

Go back and read, friend.

Read, and take the time to re-evaluate your nonsensical and overly-defensive attitude.

:unsure:

 

Well if you were being kind, then why did it seem like you were agreeing with me one minute and stabbing me in the back the next.....not that i care, i know i'm right when it comes to solid wood and sustain over chambered wood, and if you do have the years of experience like i do then you should know the same as i.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Farnsbarns

Well if you were being kind, then why did it seem like you were agreeing with me one minute and stabbing me in the back the next.

 

Because you're a ducking idiot (auto correct). Sparky, who has far more patience than I with moron trolls like yourself, deserves a medal for his pragmatic aproach. You tw@

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if you were being kind, then why did it seem like you were agreeing with me one minute and stabbing me in the back the next?

 

I have often thought the same thing when it comes to girlfriends, ex-wives, and elected politicians.

 

 

 

.....not that i care, i know i'm right when it comes to solid wood and sustain over chambered wood, and if you do have the years of experience like i do then you should know the same as i.

 

I have only been playing guitars for around 42 years, and owned my first Gibson Les Paul (a gold-top Deluxe) from early 1976 to late 1977.

And I have owned a few, on and off, ever since then.

 

Here's what I know, and what you eventually may come to know;

 

* Achieving guitar sustain has more to do with how you use your fingers,

how smoothly you keep your frets polished,

and whether or not you use a compressor

than it does

your choice in weight-relieved or non-weight-relieved guitars.

http://www.gibson.com/news-lifestyle/features/en-us/the-secrets-of-sustain.aspx

 

* Of all the finger-techniques involved with sustain, vibrato is probably the most important.

 

* If there is any one element of solid-body guitar construction that contributes to sustain, it is the rock-solid relationship between the neck of the guitar and the center of the guitar, and that's exactly where you are coming very close to the truth of the matter.

 

If you look at a solid-body guitar as a hardwood two-by-four, with the tuners on one end, the pickups firmly mounted into the hardwood near the bridge end, and the bridge at the very opposite end from the tuning pegs, then you have the 'sustain' concerns of a solid-body electric right in front of you.

 

Okay, now let's tie that all together;

 

Think of BB King, and how he achieved sustain.

Primarily with that sublime fret-finger technique called 'vibrato', but also with a firm understanding of his ES335's guitar architecture.

Semi-hollow body guitars are usually constructed from laminates and have elements of both the hollow and solid body inherent in their design.

A solid block of maple runs down the center of the hollowed body, providing sustain and reducing feedback potential.

 

Think back to that hardwood two-by-four.

(or a Ned Steinberger guitar even)

The core or center of that plank is it. That's the magic of sustain when it comes to solid-body electrics and sustain.

The 'wings' of the guitar (as Mr Les Paul himself called the two pieces he mounted to the sides of his original 'Log'), were just window dressing to make the guitar appear normal, and attractive to the audience.

 

Log.gif

 

Are there elements of TONE in the wings, whether it be a semi-hollow-body, solid body, weight-relieved, and non-weight-relieved?

Heck yes!

A thousand times yes.

But not necessarily sustain.

 

And tone is a matter of personal preference, not a matter of 'right' or 'wrong'.

Some people like vanilla ice cream.

Others prefer chocolate.

Neither is wrong, but rather, each is a personal like or dislike.

 

 

There.

Was that nice and friendly enough, or am I still a two-faced hypocrite?

:unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe this stupid aunt(*) is still bored enough to come back.

 

P.

 

(*) Sorry; that should have been a 'c' at the start of the word. Bloody spell-check.

 

 

 

I can't believe how ignorant some of you are.. The people that run this forum should take a look at stuff like this, I can appreciate a good arguement but when it comes down to being this disrespectful let me tell you I don't wanna be on a forum that allows this type of criticism.. shame on you, and mostly shame on the people that run this forum for not removing that post!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Macmutt, what I'd like to know is why you are so annoyed about weight relief now? It's no new thing as Gibson have being doing some form of weight relief since the early 1980's. If you have been playing as long as you say, then why are you acting like weight relief is this new terrible affliction on Les Pauls? Move on and get over it! Why don't you spend more time practising and playing guitar then worrying about trivial things? Some players get so hung up on these trivial things and forget that BEING A GOOD PLAYER IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE INSTRUMENT YOU USE, as long as the instrument is playable and fairly well made.

 

Furthermore, as a few have already stated BUY A CUSTOM SHOP NON WEIGHT RELIEVED LP...or why not a Junior or Special? In my collection I have a Special, a Music City Jnr Special and a Junior which are Gibson USA and made of solid mahogany (except the Music City one which is Ash). I have a non weight relieved '57 Custom Reissue too...but I also have a Classic, Trad Pro, Studio and Standard all of which are weight relieved. They are all great guitars, despite the various methods of construction. There are lots of options out there, so stop whining like a baby!

 

Btw, where do you stand on '70's pancake body Les Pauls? I bet you love them [biggrin]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ahh man, you know what...

 

I really think hes just trolling..... take no notice.. im not going to bother anymore with someone who obviously has no idea what they are talking about or is just here to argue with people.

 

Let alone giving no proof or evidence apart from his own view... which lets face it, doesn't mean very much apart from to him.

 

You're right Rabs. I must avoid the urge to reply to Macmutts narrow minded views [rolleyes]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading this overlong and 'mostly silly ;)' thread has made me speculate a little more about why a solid body guitar sounds the way it does.

 

It comes from the point about the routing for the electric components. This does (as stated earlier) amount to small hollow chambers in the solidbody guitar.

 

The only way you could have a %100 solid body guitar is to create the inverse of a hollowbody guitar.

 

A hollowbody design takes every care to KEEP STUFF OUT of the acoustic chamber. So it has pickups mounted on the outside, such the 'floating' type typically attaching the the neck, or screwed on P90s. Tailpieces attached to the lower bout strap pin and floating bridges. All this is to maximise the acoustic sound of the instrument.

 

You would have to build a solidbody guitar the exact same way to ensure it remained %100 solid. I don't think there would be much point in a design like this, but clearly the guy who wrote the OP does.

 

This effect is most obvious comparing an ES-339 (semi-hollow) and a ES-330 (fully hollow). The ES-330 is much louder acoustically and much heavier of course. The crucial point is it also sounds very different, despite having exactly the same body design.

 

 

I suspect that its the chambers in the body that reveal the tone of the woods used in its construction.

 

I realise this dips heavily into the sorry old tonewood debate (I appologise), but what everyone does agree on, is that wood on a electric guitar with an acoustic chamber does matter and does contribute to the sound.

 

So I am suggesting that volume of chambering = % of wood tone. I dont mind or even care much if I am wrong, but it is nevertheless a good fit with my experience (46 years).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL a recording....anything could be made to sound like whatever you want it to sound like by the time you run it through a mixing board, now if your were sitting in the same room with me and i was blind folded and you had each of those guitars plugged directly into a tube amp and you were ringing out a single note and letting it sing out until it stopped.

 

Then yes i could tell you which guitar was chambered and which one was solid.

I doubt you know what a mixing board or a tube amp might be able to do and what not. :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go get an acoustic guitar, and then go get an electric guitar, plug in the electric to an amp and pluck the same note on both and time the sustain and how long it takes for the note to fizzle out to silence.....the electric will win every single time.

No. Simply no.

 

 

Therefore if you have a solid body 10 pound guitar and a chambered 4 pound guitar, the 10 pounder will always sustain longer.....every single time the larger the mass the more sustain....we live on planet earth you can't change the laws of physics....there is no dispute, i am right !!!!!

Again no. Quite honestly no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Macmutt said:

Therefore if you have a solid body 10 pound guitar and a chambered 4 pound guitar, the 10 pounder will always sustain longer.....every single time the larger the mass the more sustain....we live on planet earth you can't change the laws of physics....there is no dispute, i am right !!!!!

 

 

 

Again no. Quite honestly no.

Again.. Just proves he knows nothing...... My LP Standard which is chambered is 9.5lbs... Its perfect... My Classic is about 11.5lbs and I wouldn't want one heavier....

 

Good luck finding a solid body guitar that weighs 4lbs... That's just a joke and exaggeration to try and prove his pointless point... Even my chambered LP Studio weighs 7.5lbs... Just more nonsense

 

And if he thinks 10lbs is heavy.. he don't know heavy [-X

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This effect is most obvious comparing an ES-339 (semi-hollow) and a ES-330 (fully hollow). The ES-330 is much louder acoustically and much heavier of course. The crucial point is it also sounds very different, despite having exactly the same body design.

I would imagine you meant to compare an ES-335 and ES-330, and also meant to say that the 335 is of course much heavier than the 330. I'm fortunate enough to have two of each, and they all bring something unique to the table.

 

Very different animals, but as with the wide variety of Les Pauls, the only thing that matters is whether or not the instrument is enjoyable and inspiring tonally to whomever happens to be playing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again.. Just proves he knows nothing...... My LP Standard which is chambered is 9.5lbs... Its perfect... My Classic is about 11.5lbs and I wouldn't want one heavier....

 

Good luck finding a solid body guitar that weighs 4lbs... That's just a joke and exaggeration to try and prove his pointless point... Even my chambered LP Studio weighs 7.5lbs... Just more nonsense

 

And if he thinks 10lbs is heavy.. he don't know heavy [-X

Perhaps used - this one here is 3 lbs but no longer available new:

 

http://www.hammacher.com/Product/82926?promo=search

 

EDIT: Given the offer is still valid, it can be bought here:

 

http://www.coolest-gadgets.com/20120821/worlds-lightest-packable-electric-guitar/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Macmutt, what I'd like to know is why you are so annoyed about weight relief now? It's no new thing as Gibson have being doing some form of weight relief since the early 1980's. If you have been playing as long as you say, then why are you acting like weight relief is this new terrible affliction on Les Pauls? Move on and get over it! Why don't you spend more time practising and playing guitar then worrying about trivial things? Some players get so hung up on these trivial things and forget that BEING A GOOD PLAYER IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE INSTRUMENT YOU USE, as long as the instrument is playable and fairly well made.

 

Furthermore, as a few have already stated BUY A CUSTOM SHOP NON WEIGHT RELIEVED LP...or why not a Junior or Special? In my collection I have a Special, a Music City Jnr Special and a Junior which are Gibson USA and made of solid mahogany (except the Music City one which is Ash). I have a non weight relieved '57 Custom Reissue too...but I also have a Classic, Trad Pro, Studio and Standard all of which are weight relieved. They are all great guitars, despite the various methods of construction. There are lots of options out there, so stop whining like a baby!

 

Btw, where do you stand on '70's pancake body Les Pauls? I bet you love them [biggrin]

 

You know what..for the most part i agree with everything you said here, i just can't help but get really annoyed when companies like Gibson mess with such a perfect and historic instrument like the Les Paul, i just don't see why they can't leave it as is.

 

Look at Fender and Rickenbacker, the Strat nor the Ric 360 has ever been altered since their conception, both are still made exactly how they were from day one.

So why couldn't Gibson just do the same ? Thats all i'm saying, there is just no need to mess with a classic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again.. Just proves he knows nothing...... My LP Standard which is chambered is 9.5lbs... Its perfect... My Classic is about 11.5lbs and I wouldn't want one heavier....

 

Good luck finding a solid body guitar that weighs 4lbs... That's just a joke and exaggeration to try and prove his pointless point... Even my chambered LP Studio weighs 7.5lbs... Just more nonsense

 

And if he thinks 10lbs is heavy.. he don't know heavy [-X

 

In this video these two guys from Andertons Music in the U.K. test multiple Les Paul guitars, about 11 minutes and 40 seconds into the video they do a time test for the chambered Les Paul standard's sustain, against a solid body Epiphone standard and the Gibson rings out for 7 seconds and the Epiphone rings out for almost 30 seconds.

 

SOLID SUSTAINS BETTER AND LONGER !!!!

Watch it for your self.....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this video these two guys from Andertons Music in the U.K. test multiple Les Paul guitars, about 11 minutes and 40 seconds into the video they do a time test for the chambered Les Paul standard's sustain, against a solid body Epiphone standard and the Gibson rings out for 7 seconds and the Epiphone rings out for almost 30 seconds.

 

SOLID SUSTAINS BETTER AND LONGER !!!!

Watch it for your self.....

 

Nope... What you are hearing there is a harmoinic feedback loop which you can do on pretty much any guitar which is set up well and with the amp loud enough. (for anyone wanting to know what hes talking about go to 11:33 on the vid)

 

I have a Pignose travel guitar with a built in amp and has a full size neck with a quarter sized body.. And I can make that guitar feedback forever on pretty much any note because the speaker is right next to the pickup.. It sounds like sustain but is not natural guitar sustain... its the effect of the pickups picking up sound from the amp.

 

And yes.. If you want I will even post a video to prove it because I put my money where my mouth is (or in this case my fingers).....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this video these two guys from Andertons Music in the U.K. test multiple Les Paul guitars, about 11 minutes and 40 seconds into the video they do a time test for the chambered Les Paul standard's sustain, against a solid body Epiphone standard and the Gibson rings out for 7 seconds and the Epiphone rings out for almost 30 seconds.

 

SOLID SUSTAINS BETTER AND LONGER !!!!

Watch it for your self.....

 

 

Mr. Macmutt, have you ever used a Les Paul at fairly decent volumes through at least 4 speakers with at least a hundred people in front of you? In other words, have you ever used a guitar in the environments it is usually meant to be used in. Just curious. Thanks.

 

rct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Farnsbarns

In this video these two guys from Andertons Music in the U.K. test multiple Les Paul guitars, about 11 minutes and 40 seconds into the video they do a time test for the chambered Les Paul standard's sustain, against a solid body Epiphone standard and the Gibson rings out for 7 seconds and the Epiphone rings out for almost 30 seconds.

 

SOLID SUSTAINS BETTER AND LONGER !!!!

Watch it for your self.....

 

 

Rabs is right. Let's do that first.

 

But after that, are you seriously saying one example is proof of your nonsense.

 

I played Alan Parsons' guitar in the early 90s. Some kind of stratalike. Probably custom made I guess, don't remember much about it except it was the lightest guitar I'd ever held but had by far the most sustain I've ever known.

 

There, proof of the opposite with one example too.

 

Now look. You've declined my bet on this. You've not come up with this equation to describe the physical law you mentioned and before the last time you buggered off you admitted you were trolling. You're clearly of subnormal intellect and have some serious personality disorder. The worst is, you don't kno we're all trolling you back. You're just entertainment. If you didn't like the things that were said you should see what's being said by PM! [lol]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...