djroge1 Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Does anyone really like those weight relieved Les Pauls? I forgot how light they were until I visited a store recently and played one. They would be hard to get used to. The one I played felt lighter than my strat. I didn't like it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Plains Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 djroge, may I ask - what's the point of this thread? "Does anyone really like those weight relieved Les Pauls?" makes it sound like "those are so horrible, how can anyone like those?" How do you really expect this thread to turn out? Do you own a Les Paul? Guess what? Unless it's around 30 years old, or a historic reissue, it's weight-relieved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djroge1 Posted December 7, 2009 Author Share Posted December 7, 2009 Well I guess you own one then.... And no it doesn't make it sound as you said and in fact it shows your arrogance by making this statement, "makes it sound like "those are so horrible, how can anyone like those?"" If I had meant that I would have said that. I meant what I asked "Does anyone really like this guitar?" and I've owned my Les Paul probably longer than you've been playing guitar. You were probably still in 3 corner britches when I got my LP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Plains Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 My arrogance? You're the one that started this thread. Does anyone really like this guitar? 1983 to 2007 Les Paul Standards are weight-relieved. 1983 to 2007 Les Paul Customs are weight-relieved. 1983 to 2007 Les Paul Studios are weight-relieved. Etc. Does anyone really like this guitar? It's only been around for 26 years and counting, what do you think? I'm 31 years old. You're older than me, so what? Please tell me what that has to do with anything. The fact that you've been playing Les Pauls since I was in 3 corner britches and don't know what weight-relieved means just goes to show that you know nothing about them. Let me guess, you meant chambered Les Pauls. Way to go smart guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surfpup Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 I have one. It's only 8 lbs. It sounds good. In fact I've posted recordings of it here and most folks complimented me on its tone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bill Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 There must be a full moon out here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djroge1 Posted December 7, 2009 Author Share Posted December 7, 2009 I have one. It's only 8 lbs. It sounds good. In fact I've posted recordings of it here and most folks complimented me on its tone. Thank you. That was the type of comment I was looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AXE® Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 I'm sure he meant chambered. Not weight relieved. Either way. I - Don't - Care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djroge1 Posted December 7, 2009 Author Share Posted December 7, 2009 My arrogance? You're the one that started this thread. Does anyone really like this guitar? 1983 to 2007 Les Paul Standards are weight-relieved. 1983 to 2007 Les Paul Customs are weight-relieved. 1983 to 2007 Les Paul Studios are weight-relieved. Etc. Does anyone really like this guitar? It's only been around for 26 years and counting' date=' what do you think? I'm 31 years old. You're older than me, so what? Please tell me what that has to do with anything. The fact that you've been playing Les Pauls since I was in 3 corner britches and don't know what weight-relieved means just goes to show that you know nothing about them. Let me guess, you meant chambered Les Pauls. Way to go smart guy. Ahhh you must feel good about your superior self. Arrogance shines through bright and clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibsonAlmighty Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 What happen.....what did I missed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djroge1 Posted December 7, 2009 Author Share Posted December 7, 2009 What happen.....what did I missed? You didn't miss anything. With the exception of a post by AXE who has since deleted his post (a helpful post at that). I guess I didn't phrase my question in a kinder and gentler and politically correct manner and r9 decided to start junk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
80LPC Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 A friend was so impressed by the tone of a new Studio against some high quality competition, he is saving for one. I have the mp3 clips - it really had the best tone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Plains Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 You're an idiot. Last time I participate in any thread with your name in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwness Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Are9 you are arrogant. I remember a post you put up a while back that stated you can't play a $1000 Gibson but you could play a $1000 Fender. You quickly edited the post. Luckily I don't have the problem and can play a guitar of any value it comes with practice. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Plains Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 ^ I was referring to the difference in quality. A $1,000 Strat feels much better (to me) than a $1,000 Les Paul. I play my $150 Squire quite well, thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffster Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 What? R9 arrogant? I actually respect the fact that having the collection he has he actually is scientific about guitar related things and not a snub. All he is trying to say is that this subject starts a lot of crap, no matter how you word it.. Chambered Les Pauls are quite alluring to guys like me that have a bad back and actually like to play standing up for hours. Do they feel weird? maybe, but it feels worse to play a 12lb LP standing up for 3 hours. I would take the chambered LP and get used to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom99SS Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Does anyone really like those weight relieved Les Pauls? Sorry but this line comes across as "Why would anybody like those weight relieved Les Pauls." That is how I took it. With that said, I have a 2007 as mentioned in my sig. Upgraded the Pots/Caps and loved the sound of the guitar. Actually like the BB Pros but thought they lacked a little fullness, a little too much upper mids and highs. Bought some BB1/BB2 used and put them in. I like the BB1/BB2 better as it has more warmth/mids/fullness to my ears. Just my opinion but I love the guitar. Even my tech comments about the playability and the tone and he has a few historics and works on many also. Sometimes you get lucky and sometimes you may get a dud. Just got to find the one that sings to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murph Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 The last Les Paul I owned was a '72 Recording. It was not weight relieved. Having said that, I bought my daughter an '08 Fireburst studio last November, and it's chambered and I snuck it out and gigged it (just to make sure it was okay ) and like it very much. I'm considering buying one just to beat it up in the clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hillybilly Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 are we talking about weight relieved or chambered? obviously people love the weight relief, because gibson released the traditional in response to the protests against chambering. i have played many a fine traditional. as for chambering, i dont mind it. i have played some smoking VMs. interestingly enough though, i am yet to meet a chambered standard (not including the Std Faded) i really like, though i admit i havent played a huge number of them. i think a lot of it has to do with pickup selection. i think the BB Pros sound good on chambered guitars. i do NOT like them as much on weight-relieved Lesters. i also really like the BFG (sound). play what ya like. ymmv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowdown Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Fight fight fight fight! Strawberry daiquiris for that table over there thanx. BTW I looove my weight relieved Faded Standard. Absolutely loooove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VBB Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Well, I'm 45 and I love my chambered Les Paul and my back and my ears agree, it's the way to go. I think you get more of an acoustic warmth with the chambered. Remeber, if a guitar sounds good unplugged, the same tone will vibrate through the strings to the pickups. My 2.5k LP seems about the same quality as my 1.2k strat. But each has their own sound and I enjoy them for different reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba_leon Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 I own two weight relieved LP's and they both sound awesome to me. I had a chambered one that I didn't like so much, but I think it came down to the pickup/body combo, than just the body itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djroge1 Posted December 8, 2009 Author Share Posted December 8, 2009 Well' date=' I'm 45 and I love my chambered Les Paul and my back and my ears agree, it's the way to go. I think you get more of an acoustic warmth with the chambered. Remeber, if a guitar sounds good unplugged, the same tone will vibrate through the strings to the pickups. My 2.5k LP seems about the same quality as my 1.2k strat. But each has their own sound and I enjoy them for different reasons. [/quote'] An acoustic warmth... Never thought of that. Good description. To be honest, I don't know which it was I picked up - weight relieved or chambered. It was leaning against an amp so I just picked it up and played it. The weight or lack there of, caught me by surprise so it probably was chambered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucketbot Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Looking forward to trying out my Chambered Buckethead Les Paul when I have it to contrast & compare it with my 57 V.O.S Solid Mahogany beast!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveS Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 There doesn't seem to be much correlation between whter it is weight relieved or chambered. I have a chambererd 2008 Standard which weighs 9lbs but have heard of weight relieved L.P.s weighing less than this........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.