DoubleSixx Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Wish Gibson would stop making chambered guitars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mash94 Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Wish Gibson would stop making chambered guitars. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichCI Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Other: I haven't tried one. IMO, anything that takes some of the weight out of an LP is a good thing as long as the guitar still sounds good even if it doesn't sound the same - maybe even better, whatever your definition of "better" is. I think we guitar players (myself included) get too caught up in "traditional" this and "vintage" that when changes can be good. Les Paul guitars have been around for over 50 years and it'd be sad to think there were no technological improvements in all that time. Music and the sound of it evolves so why shouldn't Les Pauls and guitars in general evolve as well to meet the needs of music? We have all striven to cop this guy's tone or that guy's tone at some point during our time playing guitar but the world already has those guys so you might as well try to forge your own sound to create your own music and what better way to do it than to try new and different equipment? And, if you want traditional, Gibson is still making solid Les Pauls so it's not like you can't get them anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALIEN8 Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Love em. Being a dude at 6' 6" I've encountered back issues over the years, and it's nice to have a little bit of relief in this area for a les. I think they sound great, but just like Gibson as a whole, some sound not as good as others. Otherwise, I don't care... if a guitar pleases my ear to my extremely high expectations, I buy it. Might I add that I have nailed Adam Jones' tone, and he plays a vintage custom shop, and I play a 2007 custom classic chambered! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaphod B Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 All I can tell y'all is that I like my chambered LP every bit as much as my two non-chambered (and non-weight-relieved, to boot) LPs. I don't care one way or the other about the weight. They all sound good, they all sound different, they all sound like Gibsons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OKlunchbox Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 This is my opinion, but I have a chambered LP and I love it. If I were in the situation where I was choosing between weight relieved lesters (and lets face it, as far as the USA models go that's just the way it's going to be) I would definitely go with the chambering over the swiss cheese. To me it seems like there's a lot more thought and R&D behind the chambers than the swiss cheese holes. I'll admit that I haven't done any side-by-side tone comparisons between a chambered and a solid or swiss cheese model, but I know that mine sounds pretty killer. From what I can tell the main argument against them is that they don't feel the way a "real" Les Paul should feel. I say who cares. I'm going to enjoy playing my Les Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vern_s Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 I was thinking of posting this thread myself to find out what ppl thought of them, so thanks for the post. I'm not too familiar with how a LP is "supposed to sound" but I know that mine is chambered and it kicks butt as far as awesome tone goes IMO. It sounds very nice even when unplugged which may be attributed to the chambering, not sure??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundergod Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 As long as it sounds and plays well, I couldnt care less... and IMO chambered pauls sound better than solid ones when unplugged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joelettinger Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 i kinda wish they would stop making them chambered...now the most affordable new les paul that isnt chambered is the traditional... the studio used to be the affordable model that had the goods in the sound department. the new studios sound...well hollow in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaphod B Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 The cool thing is that we can now buy chambered, "traditional" weight-relieved, or non-relieved LPs. Nothing wrong with having a choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobv Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Enthusiasts on a forum are such a small segment of the market that there's no amount of complaining that's going to stop Gibson from weight-relieving their guitars. Nor should it. Oh wait, I meant to say "Ugh, gasp, ohno. Don't even understand the difference between 'chambered' and 'weight relieved' but I'm horrified by the idea that a Les Paul would be made with any improvements or changes in design - at all -whatsoever - and it must be exactly the same as it was in 1959. I prefer nitrocellulose because it wears off, uh, I mean because it 'breathes.' I don't like the Nashville bridge because it's not the same - even if it does permit accurate intonation and doesn't rattle. No, it's all got to be exactly the same and the manufacturer must never try to improve on it." Give me a break, if you insist on an old style guitar then pay for an R9, otherwise just get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Plains Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 All n' all, I'm glad Gibson makes them. It gives you, the consumer, more choices. It's not like Gibson forced it down all our throats and made every Les Paul chambered. But my personal preference is non-chambered. Not because of sound, but because they're too light. To me, the non-chambered LPs feel substantial. My BFG feels like a toy guitar...doesn't sound like a toy, but feels like one. I think it's true though that chambering came about so that Gibson could use sub-standard wood that otherwise wouldn't be used for a Lester. That's not necessarily a bad thing because the end result is a great sounding guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AXE® Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 If it plays good , sounds good , it is good . I've only played one, so I really can't make a judgment one way or the other . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundergod Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 It's not like Gibson forced it down all our throats and made every Les Paul chambered. Who do you think is behind all those so called alien abductions? They take you from your home so that the sound of them aliens making holes in your R8 and R9 dont wake you up... Rectal probes and eye needles are just plot supporting stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fingers galore Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Love `em. I was a bit taken aback when I first got my chambered LP. It seemed way to light weight for a LP. However, I quickly got used to the weight. And the tone is awesome. This baby sings! I think it is cool that Gibson has realized that a segment of their clientele still prefer the "traditional" swiss cheese LP. Let the buyer decide. Cheers. If it plays good ' date=' sounds good , it is good . [/quote'] +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silverbursted Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 I'm a bit confused. The definition of Standard is: The widely recognized or employed as a model of authority or excellence: a standard reference work. OK, so the Les Paul has established itself as the industry standard for excellence in electric guitars. It is the standard to which other models are based. The Standard should never have been changed IMO, the Standard is the standard. Lighter models could have been introduced as a Standard Light, or something along those lines. Gibson obviously figured that out, because they are introducing the Traditional, a Standard made the way they did when the Standard was the standard. Does any of this make sense? I played an 07 Standard the other day, and I swear that thing barely weighed 6 lbs (a guess). Tone was good, it just didn't feel right in my hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porschemunkey Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 I think the maple top and neck joint are far more important than the chambering. Just my .02... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saturn Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 I'm an Other guy. I can't say I hate them, but I prefer them solid. I'm glad there's now a choice and Gibson more clearly states whether it's chambered, weight relieved or completely solid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.