Joe Bonamassa or Gary Moore

[El_Jeffe_Solid]

I saw Bonamassa last month in Eugene, Oregon.... The first show of his new tour. Don't get me wrong, I love Gary Moore..... But Bonamassa owns Gary Moore. He owns pretty much every guitar player ever. Best show I've ever seen. He is killer. Truly a master of his instrument. Perfect combination of the technical and the soulful. 'Nuff said.

[S t e v e]

Is it just me' date=' or is the Gary Moore signature Les Paul nothing more than a very, very, very expensive Studio?

 

 

you can go on forever with that thought, is a pearly gates or a number 2 just a realy expensive standard?

[LT ED]

Two great players but I would go with Joe. He is more of a natural blues player were as Gary just seems to play heavy metal blues, to loud, to fast. One thing is for sure there both ugly, a face only a mother could love.

[cwness]

Is it just me' date=' or is the Gary Moore signature Les Paul nothing more than a very, very, very expensive Studio?

 

 

That's what I've thought all along. No biinding = Studio.

 

CW

[S t e v e]

I wouldn't buy one' date=' I just like the P90 in the neck[/quote']

 

P90? it's fitted with a reversed zebra burst-bucker and an open coil burst-bucker

[Silenced Fred]

P90? :) it's fitted with a reversed zebra burst-bucker and an open coil burst-bucker :-

 

My apologies' date=' the Gary Moore BFG

 

Sorry about that

[S t e v e]

I saw Bonamassa last month in Eugene' date=' Oregon.... The first show of his new tour. Don't get me wrong, I love Gary Moore..... But Bonamassa owns Gary Moore. He owns pretty much every guitar player ever. Best show I've ever seen. He is killer. Truly a master of his instrument. Perfect combination of the technical and the soulful. 'Nuff said.[/quote']

 

 

[YOUTUBE]

[/YOUTUBE]

[NeoConMan]

is a pearly gates or a number 2 just a realy expensive standard?

In essence, yes.

Especially the Pearly Gates - it's a '59 Reissue, which was already priced high enough.

 

 

And CWNess nailed it on the head.

First time I saw the Gary Moore, that's exactly what I thought -

"No binding = Studio."

 

Then I saw the price tag and that guitar immediately left my radar, never to be seen again.

Would you pay 10 times the normal asking price for a satin-finished melody maker for a name?

 

 

 

I'll not argue that the signature guitars are getting some attention to detail they lacked in years past.

But it's never meant enough for me to pay the kind of cash they command.

 

I could afford the numerous Page signatures that have been done, same with Slash, Angus, etc.

I just ain't gonna do it.

[S t e v e]

In essence' date=' yes.

Especially the Pearly Gates - it's a '59 Reissue, which was already priced high enough.

 

 

And CWNess nailed it on the head.

First time I saw the Gary Moore, that's exactly what I thought -

"No binding = Studio."

 

Then I saw the price tag and that guitar immediately left my radar, never to be seen again.

Would you pay 10 times the normal asking price for a satin-finished melody maker for a name?

 

 

 

I'll not argue that the signature guitars are getting some attention to detail they lacked in years past.

But it's never meant enough for me to pay the kind of cash they command.

 

I could afford the numerous Page signatures that have been done, same with Slash, Angus, etc.

I just ain't gonna do it.

 

[/quote']

 

have a read of this please, then if you still think that it's an over priced studio...then i respect your opinion either way

GM les paul review

[Thin_Lizzy]

I went for Gary. Joe's good but wet behind the ears.

[cwness]

I'll not argue that the signature guitars are getting some attention to detail they lacked in years past.

But it's never meant enough for me to pay the kind of cash they command.

 

I could afford the numerous Page signatures that have been done' date=' same with Slash, Angus, etc.

I just ain't gonna do it.

 

[/quote']

 

You nail this one. I won't either.

 

CW

[NeoConMan]

have a read of this please' date=' then if you still think that it's an over priced studio...[/quote']

I did.

 

I do.

 

Changes nothing for me.

I learned nothing I didn't already know, it's a typically gushing softball review of the guitar.

 

I quoted one part that says it all for you, I'm sure;

 

"Gary decided his guitar would look different to other models in the range and did that by

asking Gibson to remove the binding from both neck and body. Although some traditionalists

might balk at this, it definitely adds the purposeful, workaday vibe that Gary was after,

and probably also helps keep the price a little more reasonable..."

 

The thing is, it says it all for me too.

And I've been called a traditionalist more times than I can count.

You're all excited that it's done exactly as Gary Moore wanted it (so goes the story) while I only see a Studio.

And the price is far from reasonable for a Studio in my opinion.

 

I'll allow anybody who wants one to pay as much as they want for it, I don't care.

I don't like Studios anyway for the simple reason that it screams out "I couldn't afford what I want"...

 

 

 

The Les Paul Standard is the standard-bearer of the line, the benchmark if you will.

Removing content from the guitar is a move down-market that Gibson continues to push.

I disagreed then, and even more so now.

Seems the majority of the customers Gibson is attracting don't realize they're doing nobody a favor.

They want to sell EVERYBODY a guitar and make a buck on them, while diluting the brand.

 

If the Gibson legend was built on Melody Makers and student/entry-level guitars in TV Yellow,

then that's what everybody would be buying now - if they stayed in business.

 

Would anybody here pay big money for a Ferrari with a wheezing Mini 4-cylinder?

Or a Porshe with plain stamped steel wheels and only rough primer for paint.

How about a Rolls Royce hatchback brand new for the same price as a large motorcycle?

 

The NICE, bound, glossy, figured, rich-looking Les Pauls and semi-hollows are what created

the mystique that enabled Gibson to profit handsomely in the high-end market.

 

Taking stuff off a guitar, that it's supposed to have doesn't make me want it more.

And I damned sure won't spend more.

 

 

You guys buy what you want, just don't get pissy if some people don't agree you made the best move.

There's my $.02 on the matter.

 

[djroge1]

Then there is the Gibson Joe Bonamassa Les Paul

 

From Joe's message/forum (2006):

 

Hey Everybody,

I just wanted to give you a update on what we decided on for the Joe Bonamassa Les Paul. First: its going to be a Gold top based on a early 57 design. It'll have the black back and black pickup surrounds and hardware. They will be aged and look right for the period. They will have a Burstbucker 2 in the front and a Burstbucker 3 for the lead. All the chrome will be aged and it will have Grover tuners. The headstock will be a consistent thickness and match my main Murphy. It will have the nice 1959 profile neck. The ABR-1 will have no retaining wire and 3 nylon saddles just like on mine. I basically did everything to it to make it a great guitar. It'll be light and the dish on the top will be more pronounced than on other historic Gold tops. It will look and sound and most importantly feel right. I wanted to make something that people will want to play forever and always grab for as their first choice. I dont know exactly how much they will be but in the low $3000's I will guess. Kudos to Pat, Rick, Edwin, Tom and Chris and everybody at the custom shop for being so cool and doing this for me. Plus got to give a big shout out to Jim Dunlop for making the Joe Bonamassa custom Jazz 3's. They are basically the same pick only with my name on them. Just got them today.. so cool

Joe Bonamassa

[Bowdiddley]

I've been fortunate to have seen many of the "great" guitarist from the late 60's through today. I'd have to say that Joe has my vote for the best when it come to mastery of the blues-rock guitar and his tone re-wrote the book on tone in my opinion.