Dynadude Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 I'd like to see some really daring limited editions. Not just the super duper new electronic wonders. I get tired of Gibson making a few barely noticable changes and declaring it to be a whole new Les Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockstar232007 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 The cheap' date=' flat plastic pickup rings...the top is carved, why not curve the bottom of the rings to match the top?[/quote']The original '50s LPs were virtually flat on the top (for a better visual effect), so the rings didn't have to conform, but I think due to production/labor costs, they now don't spend enough time on sanding the tops to the right detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madguitarist78 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 PRICE!! other than that I cant think of anything except the different pickups that come in certain models... I wish they would use some really good humbuckers that sound vintage and put them in all the models like in the 50's.... The custom 490 498t pickups are a little hot for my taste but the guitar is flawless!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pohatu771 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 I'd like to see some really daring limited editions. Not just the super duper new electronic wonders. I get tired of Gibson making a few barely noticable changes and declaring it to be a whole new Les Paul. If they do that, everyone complains that they're getting too experimental... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadCase Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Don't like... the pots. Do like... everything else. ... in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chongo Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 1) Price -- but not so much that the price is too high but that it's too high for the quality of guitar that you're getting for the money. There are just better guitars on the market for much less money. Simply putting Gibson on the headstock no longer does it for me. 2) Playability -- aside from the Axcess, the neck joint is a miserable antique. The necks are clunky and they could stand to offer a wider fretboard with a flatter radius as an option. Adopt the Axcess neck heel across the board except for a few cork-sniffer models. 3) Electronics -- the standard LP pot arrangement was dictated by the pickguard. For those guitars offered without a pickguard, why not offer an alternate pot arrangement that puts a bridge pickup volume control up nearer the bridge/bridge pickup where it could be used for volume swells? Why couple the volume pots together with the selector in the middle position? Why not offer coil tapping switches (and not necessarily push-pull) on most models? Put real 500K pots back on the dang things. 4) Hardware. Put locking tuners on everything. It's just easier to string the guitar. Offer Floyd and Wilkie trems as an option on almost all models. FIX the design of the headstock angle (add biscuits, add a volute) to reduce the number of broken-off headstocks. Change the angle of the neck where necessary. 5) I want the choice of a lighter or a heavier body on the guitars. At the moment, I don't get a choice -- all I get from Gibson (except for a few cork-sniffer models) is the semi-hollowbody. I actually had to go to another manufacturer to get a solid body Les Paul alike. Put a tummy cut on *all* LPs. With CNC machines available there's no reason to keep the back of the LP all squared off. 6) Offer something other than that ugly cream binding on more models of the LP guitar. It just doesn't GO with a lot of LP colors, sorry. How about plain old white. Or "natural" binding (taped-off binding). Or binding made of exotic woods. Geez, if Taylor and Carvin and even Agile can do it, why does Gibson have a problem with it. Kill off the green plastic inlays forever. There's no reason for a guitar with a pricetag of over $2K to have plastic inlays. 7) If you're going to offer plain tops, make them plain. If you're going to offer figured wood, make it great figured wood. Don't try to pass off that Grade B junk as a figured wood top. Don't be doing that Dork Fire black stain then sanded off then colored lacquer applied stuff on half-fast Grade B not-quite figured wood. It just looks blotchy and cheap. Even saw one of these on a "Fire Tiger" (translucent red) custom Axcess. It looked terrible and gathered dust because Gibson didn't think that a $4K guitar merited a half-way decent figured top. And it had that stupid cream binding as well. What were they thinking? 8) And finally. The whole business with Nitrocellulose lacquer is nonesense. I don't want a guitar that's going to develop checking at the first sign of a change in the weather. It's NOT better for tone (or worse, for that matter), and i would much rather have a guitar that will look as good as however I take care of it over the next 20 years. I've got enough Gibsons with nitro on them, and frankly I'd rather have that new, thinner polyester finish that you can UV cure almost instantly, and that seems to take whatever abuse you can toss at it. It's better for the environment, better for the guitar (no more worries about what kind of chemicals it will react with, no worries about checking, no worries about it turning colors or flaking off). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flight959 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I love mine.. Cant really find fault with them.... Flight959 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tulsaslim Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 They don't make a custom or a studio with a thin neck & they discontinued the classic which had the best neck profile of them all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bram Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 1) The thing I most dislike about the new Les Pauls is the chambering stuff inside the body of the guitar. - It makes the Les Paul definately feel wrong and cheap. - It makes the Les Paul sound lighter, brighter and acoustic. - It doesn't make any sense. I can't understand why they did this to Les Pauls. For less weight? ***** talk! Buy a Strat or Tele if you can't live with the weight. Les Pauls are supposed to be heavy in weight and solid in feel/solid in woods. That's what makes the Les Paul sound like a Les Paul (monsterous and sweet with bags of fluid sustain). It's the ultimate rock axe for (classic) hardrock and metal, with a sweet clean tone as well. Chambered Les Pauls definately are a whole different animal. 2) cheap, plastic nuts. 3) dry rosewood fretboards. 4) cheap set-up from factory 5) cheap tuners 6) too high and small frets 7) the overall 'feel' of the instrument. I've had a new Japanese Yamaha SG-2000 reissue about two years ago (it was a very special order, 100% the same build as the old SG-2000s, handcrafted, neck through construction, sustain block...well, that's the guitar I'm talking about. I stupidly sold it because I was just too damn careful with it and in the end it was a Yamaha SG, not a Gibson Les Paul. However, it played wonderfully with a fantastic (three piece) maple? neck and ebony fretboard that played like butter, even with 11's...talking about 'custom quality'.... It was an amazing, heavy/VERY solid feeling guitar with bags of naturel sustain. I really regret selling it. In terms of build quality it just couldn't get any better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnastynebr Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I love my Lester, and doubt I will ever own a better guitar. However, I would move the PU switch down by the volume/ tone controlls. I would also put some rubbers in the case, cause chicks like to bang guys that play les pauls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deepblue Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 The guitar itself, I think is perfect. Yes, even the price. I don't mind paying top dollar for one I feel is worth it.LPs in general, I can't stand the constant comparison between modern and vintage LPs or how some people think old LPs are automatically better...they're not. It's not just the reissue to original burst comparison that gets on my nerves, it's also the ones that can't get over chambering without even playing one first Well said Timbo! ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gator Slim Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 The guitar itself' date=' I think is perfect. Yes, even the price. I don't mind paying top dollar for one I feel is worth it.LPs in general, I can't stand the constant comparison between modern and vintage LPs or how some people think old LPs are automatically better...they're not. It's not just the reissue to original burst comparison that gets on my nerves, it's also the ones that can't get over chambering without even playing one first.[/quote'] 100% with you on this one. I did many hours of research on all the current models when I decided I was going to go with a new guitar instead of a used one. All the anti-chambering hype had me convinced I was going to go with a Traditional. I played probably 20 guitars before picking mine, and ended up with a chambered standard. It simply blew away all the others for the rock/blues tone I was looking for. It's like people are all bound to some sort of odd "this is how it should be built" religion instead of going for the best sound. Anyway kinda off topic perhaps. Only problem I have with my Gibson is the poor nut setup, off the shelf. Fixed that in about 2 minutes with some graphite and vasoline. Heavenly machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil325 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 i dont like my plastic jackplate. and sometimes the input jack placement. when i sit, the cord just gets bent out. i should probably find an L-shaped cord... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bram Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I played probably 20 guitars before picking mine' date=' and ended up with a chambered standard. It simply blew away all the others for the rock/blues tone I was looking for. It's like people are all bound to some sort of odd "this is how it should be built" religion instead of going for the best sound.[/quote'] Well, I agree with this. 'Tone' is the only thing that matters in the end, even if the playability wouldn't be 100% to your taste. You'll accept its 'tone' above everything else. I personally would have kept the Yamaha SG-2000 reissue if I only cared for build quality.... However, a quality build guitar doesn't say anything about the tone of the instrument. It's the individual piece of wood that sounds/plays the way you want it or not. The Yamaha SG-2000 really had the Santana-vibe/tone going on, coupled with a smooth playability/feel, but in the end it wasn't my thing. I didn't like the coil tap concept, I didn't like the pickups and I didn't want to mess with it. I sold that beautifully build SG-2000 and kept my 1988 LP Standard. I love its simplicity, feel and its sweet, warm and big tone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chongo Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I personally would have kept the Yamaha SG-2000 reissue if I only cared for build quality.... However' date=' a quality build guitar doesn't say anything about the tone of the instrument. It's the individual piece of wood that sounds/plays the way you want it or not. The Yamaha SG-2000 really had the Santana-vibe/tone going on, coupled with a smooth playability/feel, but in the end it wasn't my thing. I didn't like the coil tap concept, I didn't like the pickups and I didn't want to mess with it. I sold that beautifully build SG-2000 and kept my 1988 LP Standard. I love its simplicity, feel and its sweet, warm and big tone. [/quote'] I've got an '82 Ibanez Artist AR-300 -- very close to the design of the SG2000, complete with the brass sustain block under a massive bridge and tailpiece, SOLID mahogany body and neck, very smooth neck heel transition. I've played the SG2000's (which are still available from Yamaha, by the way, as are the SG3000s), and both the Ibanez Artists of the '80's and the SG2000's were/are better built than LPs, and more playable as well. Unlike you, however, I really like the pickups and the tone of the Ibanez. And unlike your LP, most of my guitars have coil taps and more on them. I'm not sure how you can not "like the coil tap concept"; I'm guessing that you just didn't like the results on your particular guitar. The Ibanez has two three-way switches that allow you to run the pickups in serial (standard humbucking), parallel (switches the coils around for a thinner humbucking type sound) or coil-tapped (only one coil is active, and produces a sound something like a strat pickup, complete with the single coil hum). This is an hellaciously good Les Paul type guitar (even though it has a double cutaway): For those who haven't seen one, this is a Yamaha SG-3000 (in wineburst). Aside from some cosmetic differences (abalone inlay on the body next to the binding), the major change from the SG2000 is the lack of the sustain block and the change to spinex-based pickups (some consider them the best ever built). This is a neck-through guitar with a smooth neck heel, and a big old tummy cut in the back. Very comfortable to play and sounds great (and it's *heavy*) This is the back of a Yamaha SG2000 showing the neck-through (the neck is a three-piece with a single maple stringer and mahogany on either side, and the body is solid mahogany) and the tummy cut (the Ibanez AR-300 has the same kind of tummy cut). Gibson has finally put a tummy cut on the Axcess guitars... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaHooomie Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I can't understand why they don't make all Gibson models with the Axcess neck. Don't really like where the input is. And that's about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chongo Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 And for those of you who haven't seen the Axcess guitars, this is the neck heel on those: and this is the neck heel on my recently completed Agile custom: I think that the LP could be a LOT more playable across the board. Why put up with a 50+ year old design if there are better options (even from GIBSON!) available? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chongo Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 The original '50s LPs were virtually flat on the top (for a better visual effect)' date=' so the rings didn't have to conform, but I think due to production/labor costs, they now don't spend enough time on sanding the tops to the right detail. [/quote'] I dunno about YOUR 50's LPs, but my'50's LPs aren't virtually flat on the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callen3615 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 And for those of you who haven't seen the Axcess guitars' date=' this is the neck heel on those:[img']http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dspellman/IMG_2327.jpg[/img] and this is the neck heel on my recently completed Agile custom: I think that the LP could be a LOT more playable across the board. Why put up with a 50+ year old design if there are better options (even from GIBSON!) available? +100000000000000000000000000000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild_Rose Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 the price!!!!! #-o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdw3 Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 1) The thing I most dislike about the new Les Pauls is the chambering stuff inside the body of the guitar. - It makes the Les Paul definately feel wrong and cheap. - It makes the Les Paul sound lighter' date=' brighter and acoustic. - It doesn't make any sense. I can't understand why they did this to Les Pauls. For less weight? ***** talk! Buy a Strat or Tele if you can't live with the weight. 2) cheap, plastic nuts. 3) dry rosewood fretboards. 4) cheap set-up from factory 5) cheap tuners 6) too high and small frets 7) the overall 'feel' of the instrument.[/quote'] For me, the weight was also not an issue (my Strat is quite heavy), but the chambered body makes for incredible sustain! One of the main reasons I bought it. The sound is also very focused. I found many LPs that I tried to have a lot of extra stuff in the sound that made it kinda mushy. Otherwise, agree with all your points, except that the locking tuners on the new Standard are really nice, and with the new asymetrical neck, the feel is incredible! Not a huge fan of the neck... weight isn't even an issue for me' date=' just the shape of the neck.[/quote'] I agreed, for a long time. The neck always gave me hand cramps (didn't matter, 50's or 60's or whatever), UNTIL the new Standard. Try it. Super comfortable. Can play it all day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nato101010 Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 1. Price 2. Neck pickup is a little too muddy, and bridge pickup is to sharp and bright. 3. Inconsistent quality. A 3000$ Custom should play better then my 1200$ Studio...right? 4. I think it could benefit with Standard coil splitters. 5. Meh, could do better with necks. Sharp fret edges, I got a sliver from a Worn Studio! Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basshole Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 For me, the neck on some les puals is to think for my taste, I like thin necks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crossroadsnyc Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 There is nothing I dislike. As far as price is concerned, I don't see this as a valid argument unless you are under the impression everything should be made available to you immediately without having to work and save for it (i.e, Obama-nomics / socialist or communist state mentality). The fact is, particularly for younger people, that the process of purchasing something of high quality is a good lesson in fiscal discipline, financial management, as well as understanding the value of a dollar. You can complain about prices all day and night, but they are what they are for a reason (quality) - people can choose to take it or leave it. As for those of you were were fortunate enough to have a family member work their *** off for your guitar, you would be well served to follow their lead in doing what it takes to succeed. A thank you would be nice too! My name is crossroadsnyc and I approve this message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPguitarman Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 There is nothing I dislike. As far as price is concerned' date=' I don't see this as a valid argument unless you are under the impression everything should be made available to you immediately without having to work and save for it (i.e, Obama-nomics / socialist or communist state mentality). The fact is, particularly for younger people, that the process of purchasing something of high quality is a good lesson in fiscal discipline, financial management, as well as understanding the value of a dollar. You can complain about prices all day and night, but they are what they are for a reason (quality) - people can choose to take it or leave it. As for those of you were were fortunate enough to have a family member work their *** off for your guitar, you would be well served to follow their lead in doing what it takes to succeed. A thank you would be nice too! My name is crossroadsnyc and I approve this message. [/quote'] I agree 100%. Nothing wrong with my Les Paul. And, there are enough different configurations of Les Pauls to please anyone. Choose the neck you want, the pick-up combination, the finish, the wood grain etc. Just be prepared to pay the price for what you want. Studio-to-Standard-to-Classic-to-Supreme... Your choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.