Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Macmutt

Sorry but Weight relieved Les Pauls are NOT Les Pauls

Recommended Posts

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only affect will be acoustically.

If you want to sound close to Allman Brothers, Frampton, Skynyrd, Aerosmith, even some early Clapton,

you`ll have to practice.

Not blame a guitar company for that "sound" you can not achieve. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Long ago in usenet, rec.music.makers.guitar, I was expressing horror at some new Tele. Merle Haggard maybe, some other crazy pickups and stuff on a tele Tele. I used my signature line, "That's not a Tele". A guy from NYC that became a dear in person friend later gave me a line of sage wisdom that I have never forgotten:

 

"A Tele is whatever Fender says a Tele is". Followed of course, by 1342 posts within two hours of just the most awful, name calling, vitriol filled, mutha effin of everyone you ever saw from all over rmmg. Man, them were some good times on these innernets.

 

Thank You Andrew.

 

rct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not about the weight. It's all about your stage moves [thumbup].

 

I have a 35th Anniv Black Beauty & a weight relieved LP Standard. The Standard is more forgiving on the body during extended playing. When that gets too much, out comes the Strat!

 

Each to their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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,

 

You should start playing the guitar so you know this stuff.

 

rct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

which is why a PRS with a mahogany and maple body and it's dual humbuckers does not sound like a solid Les Paul.

 

 

This is way too simple an analogy and does not stack up. Wood is a natural product and it follows that if what you say is true, then every tree is identical down to the cellular level, water absorption, age, everything. That also applies to metals & alloys used for the hardware. No chance. Myth busted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

However the original design and combination of solid mahogany and maple never needed to change,

 

Sure it did. The original bridge was a failing pile of crap and the pickups were buzz filled P-90's

 

 

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.

 

I'll bet you $1000 you can't hear the difference between a solid Les Paul and a weight relief body Les Paul. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Mahogany and Maple are very hard dense woods,

 

 

 

Mahogany is NOT a very hard and dense wood. It has massive pores and you can dent it with your fingernails. It's nothing at all like maple.

 

 

 

they produce a warm rich and long sustaining tone that is unmistakeable when directly plugged into any amp.

 

 

 

Oh boy... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't help but get outraged when i go on Gibson's website and......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 ?....

First question; How heavy is your non weight-relieved guitar?

Second question; How heavy (on average) do you think the 'original' '58-'60 Les Pauls were?

Why don't YOU think about THAT for a minute or two...

 

The guitarists abilities has NOTHING to do with the tone of their guitars...

That is easily the funniest, the most incorrect and the most stupid thing I've read here in a very long time....

 

You obviously need to practice - and concentrate on your playing technique - a LOT more.

 

Pip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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

 

Spot-on.

 

Everybody is in denial of the simple fact that the prototype Les Paul was the prefect guitar. Gibson got it right first time.

 

The decision to make it look exactly like their ubiquitous archtops was an act of faith which was rewarded by the everlasting devotion of Les Paul owners.

Whether they realise it or not, everybody should to be using this.

https://www.guitar.com/articles/auction-les-paul%E2%80%99s-personal-les-paul-prototype-and-chet-atkins%E2%80%99-%E2%80%9Cdark-eyes%E2%80%9D-guitars

 

Every LP produced since 1954 has gradually devolved. This has culminated in that outrage, the ES-Les Paul

http://www.gibson.com/Products/Electric-Guitars/2015/Memphis/ES-Les-Paul.aspx

 

Not even content with that, 2017 will see the introduction of the ES-Les Paul Levitation. The acoustic chamber with the helium filled sac that has to be led around on a piece of string.

 

Expect inflated price rises too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello.

 

We all know, which is the true Les Paul:

 

IMG_2580_zps26fd4bb1.jpg

 

The one designed by Mr. Les Paul, with pickups created by Mr. Les Paul. And, - of course - played by Mr. Les Paul.

 

This debate is pointless, thus. Please stop it!

 

Bence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...If you want to sound close to Allman Brothers, Frampton, Skynyrd, Aerosmith, even some early Clapton, you`ll have to practice.

Not blame a guitar company for that "sound" you can not achieve...

[thumbup]

 

Do you know anything about guitar components and wood tones and variances in sustain ?...

Actually, yes. He does.

As it happens Rabs knows rather a lot about the construction of solid-body guitars...

 

[smile]

 

Pip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No way. The Log is the true Les Paul - the rest of 'em are all just compromises.

 

The Log was only the beginning of a journey leading to perfection: The Les Paul Recording guitar!

 

Cheers... Bence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Log was only the beginning of a journey leading to perfection: The Les Paul Recording guitar!

And Les himself would agree with that statement 100% Bence!

 

eusa_clap.gifeusa_clap.gifeusa_clap.gifeusa_clap.gifeusa_clap.gif

 

Pip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoever wrote the copy for the auction house needs a slap on the wrist.

Sheer nonsense from start to finish.

 

"What if you could say your Les Paul was the actual prototype for all Les Paul model guitars ever created? That's the Les Paul that's coming up for auction February 19th.Searching for an answer to Leo Fender's solidbody Broadcaster guitar...Gibson approached...Les Paul in the early 1950s with a guitar he deemed was too flawed to put his name on. After consulting with Gibson on several design changes, they got back to him in January of 1954 with the Les Paul Black Custom, which eventually became known as the "Black Beauty."

 

That's not one of the original, prototype, Les Pauls.

Leaving aside for a moment the fact that it was Les who first approached Gibson in the '40s, when Gibson eventually DID get back to Les in '51 and brought him one of the prototypes this is what ensued;

 

"I went to this hunting lodge where Les was staying and took out the guitar and I handed it to him. He played it for a little bit. Then he played it some more. He was happy with it. Then he said; "I want Mary to hear this." I told Les the idea was to have his name on it - a Les Paul model - and we'd pay him a royalty on every one we make. Les yelled; "Mary, come down here." Les then handed Mary the guitar and said "Ted wants to put our name on their guitar. What do you think of it?" She played it and said "I like the way it feels. It's easy to handle, it's very comfortable and it has beautiful tone. It's a great guitar." She went back upstairs and Les said "OK. Let's go!". (Ted McCarty interviewed by Gill Hembree in Hembree's excellent book "Gibson Guitars - Ted McCarty's Golden Era 1948-1966").

 

I've no reason to doubt that the guitar pictured in the auction-house feature started life as, as described, a '54 Black Beauty. The Les Paul guitar, however, was introduced in the Summer of '52 (as a gold-top) so how on Earth could the featured guitar be "the actual prototype for all Les Paul model guitars ever created."?

 

The actual prototype Les Paul which was brought to Les at his lodge in Delaware Water Gap would have been cut-up as was the usual fate for prototypes at that time but one prototype escaped the 'chop'. For anyone not already familiar with what the sole remaining prototype Les Paul looks like here's a picture of it;

 

4a26ca27-749c-4b4f-9d15-989137be411b_zpsda279469.jpg

 

Pip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at this beautiful prototype of the Les Paul guitar, makes me wonder why Gibson released it into production with the problematic trapeze bridge. And, how come it took 3 years to introduce the ABR bridge, when a similar article was already available?

 

The other intriguing thing that comes to my mind, is this:

 

StreamImage.aspx?Image_ID=BA4454D4-3599-4536-B834-99B49E33B2B0&Image_Type=image

 

Bence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...makes me wonder why Gibson released it into production with the problematic trapeze bridge...

We have Les to thank for the trapeze bridge/tailpiece. It was HIS design.

To be fair to Les the problem wasn't so much the bridge itself but the fact that the first-run Les Pauls were made with the wrong neck-set angle.This is also the reason most of the first-run GTs have had a neck re-set.

Once this (pretty fundamental!) mistake was rectified the trapeze would have worked fine.

 

As far as the Bigsby guitar is concerned;

Paul Bigsby and Ted McCarty were very good friends so it's no real surprise that when the prototype Les Paul was crafted many of Bigsby's ideas were incorporated into the design. In fact when Bigsby decided to sell his company he 'phoned McCarty (who was considering leaving Gibson due to the appointment of Arnold Berlin) and the deal was done. McCarty left Gibson and Arnold Berlin (the 'lin' in Norlin) started the near-total downfall of the company his own father had built up (with a lot of help from Ted McCarty and, of course, Les Paul...).

 

Pip.

 

EDIT : I think I should mention that the prototype Les Paul I posted earlier has a couple of non-original modifications. I believe the tailpiece is from a later ES- guitar although, apparently, the original was of a very similar design. The P-90 covers are also non-original. The originals would, in all probability, have been black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a very early Corona-made Strat, February '87 I believe. They had the brains enough to realize that people like to change pickups and often there might end up being humbuckers in place of the single coils for example...so it made perfect sense from both a utilitarian / modification / diversification standpoint AND from a production standpoint that they routed one big rectangular hole for the pickups...the 'bath tub rout'. I suppose it had some affect on the weight of the body, and that was a hot topic in the mid-late 80s...alder and ash were all the rage.

 

About a year ago I read an article, blog, post, that made the proclamation that bath tub routed Strats aren't real Strats.

 

I'm still shaking my head over that one.

 

I have a '77 Tele and a '71 Les Paul. I wish someone had routed the crap out of both of them. Pure or not, they both weigh as much as Buicks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...