dem00n Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 I remembered reading somewhere (here or MLP) that when the Les Paul came out with the trapeze bridge that the guitar was frowned upon. Could it be the lack of muting the strings and the weight of the guitar made it weird for guitar players of that time? I mean just think about it, you pickup this Heavy Guitar with a small body shape compared to your Archtop or Acoustic guitar, it must of been weird as **** when the Tele, Strat and Les Paul coming out. Do we any proof that these guitars were disliked by guitar players? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimbabig Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 I'm sure back then some people loved it and some hated it, just like todays guitars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigKahune Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 . Actually, there were some design issues, especially with the tailpiece, that made pros stay away after word got around. Here's a fine article on the subject - http://home.provide.net/~cfh/lpgold0.html - Blurb: "The 1952 and early 1953 Gibson Les Paul goldtop models are not very playable as a professional instrument because of a shallow neckset, and a badly designed trapeze tailpiece. ......." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Les Paul, himself, hated the first trapeze tailpiece/bridge arrangement, and the low angle neck pitch, of the very first models. You could not hand dampen the sound, the intonation was less than desirable, and the action, was too high, if the tailpiece/brige was used as designed. They had to, instead, wrap the strings under the tailpiece, to get any kind of barely acceptable action. So, it was back to the drawing board, and Gibson came up with the first "stop-bar" tailpiece/bridge combination, and a better neck pitch, which greatly improved the action, intonation, and allowed hand palm muting, as well. It was first sold, this way, in 1953. There's a bit about it, in "The Les Paul Book," by Tony Bacon, and Paul Day...on pages 17 and 20. CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dem00n Posted August 20, 2011 Author Share Posted August 20, 2011 Ah i see, so i guess some people were right about it not being the first choice for a solid body guitar. Oh and i fixed the topic title, didn't read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest farnsbarns Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 The first fix was the wrap around bridge as found on the 54 RI. Then the time-o-magic with the stop tail came in 55. The LP standard was never that popular until the late 60s and so Gibson reintroduced it in 68 when the value of a good used burst was outstripping the price of a new SG. Really, in a way, anything made from 68 is a reissue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fl00dsm0k3 Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 it was probaby treated like a firebird x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dem00n Posted August 21, 2011 Author Share Posted August 21, 2011 it was probaby treated like a firebird x Yeah. I cant wait for 30 years to pass by, people are going to be wanting the Firebird X, mabye it will be a classic by then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjay777 Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 I could only imagine how freaked out people were when the explorer came out in '58. They probably thought the Gibson plant was moved to Area 51. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fl00dsm0k3 Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Yeah. I cant wait for 30 years to pass by, people are going to be wanting the Firebird X, mabye it will be a classic by then? in 30 years i woulds get one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The RandyMan Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Some people may not have liked it then, but if they happened to buy one and still have it today, I'll bet they like it now . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dub-T-123 Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 I really can't see why the firebird x would become desirable in any way.. Stupid cheesey onboard effects, hideously ugly looks.. The groundbreaking Bluetooth technology is just gonna be outdated and even more useless than it already is in the future. I really can't imagine many people have actually bought them. I wonder if Gibson is losing a lot of money on them. Either way, the firebird x is a profoundly stupid guitar IMO. It solves every problem that nobody has in hideous fashion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chewy60 Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 i would've hated it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damian Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Yeah. I cant wait for 30 years to pass by, people are going to be wanting the Firebird X, mabye it will be a classic by then? Eh, IMHO, the Firebird X will always be NOS....... The answers above are all correct.....and good.......Once the Les Paul's inherent 'flaws' were fixed, it became a usable guitar... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky4 Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Remember, light string gauges didn't come out until the 60s. Early Les Pauls came out with 12s and I think the G string was wound. So, back then I don't think it would have been seen as something as versatile as it is now. The same goes for Teles, which came out 4 years earlier. Of course this is all speculation. Maybe some old timers here would have a better perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Let's put it this way: I'm too young to remember who was playing what until it started to become obvious to me in my early/mid teens toward the end of the 1950s. I don't recall anyone playing a LP. When I started looking for an electric to play rock, later country, 'stedda staying acoustic, the LP wasn't even a 1965 consideration. The SG or SG style was. Personally I've never cared much for the feel of an LP. Never had one, still don't really care to have one. In a sense, I think we've gotta look at the LP as a Gibson evolution from hollow body guitars into the solidbody realm to maintain what was seen as a tradition. When the LP didn't make it compared to their jazz models, I think they just really started to experiment with semis, the SG and other solidbodies that to me were just the SG with a different shape, to see what the market would accept. I think the LP was almost seen as a heavy no-feedback replacement for a jazz instrument. Heck, just listen to Les Paul playing to see what I mean. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 I remembered reading somewhere (here or MLP) that when the Les Paul came out with the trapeze bridge that the guitar was frowned upon. Could it be the lack of muting the strings and the weight of the guitar made it weird for guitar players of that time? Do we any proof that these guitars were disliked by guitar players? As has been mentioned, the first batch had the neck set at the wrong pitch which made the guitars almost unplayable. Even when the neck-set was corrected there were problems because of the Trapeze bridge - installed at the request of Les Paul himself. Both intonation and sustain suffered in comparison to the regular Gibson hardware of the time. After the pitch was corrected, however, players seemed to be happy with the guitar. It was Ted McCarty who decided to replace the Trapeze in '53 because of the aforementioned issues; "We went along (with Les Paul's Trapeze unit) for a couple of years, and I decided his trapeze was stupid. We didn't get any complaints from players, but it just didn't make sense. We had the Stoptail, which was much more functional, solid, and better all-round." As far as whether they were popular or disliked; In 1952 they sold 1,716 Gold Tops. This rose to 2,245 in '53 (although the last of these would have had the Stoptail fitted) so it was pretty successful. The numbers of guitars sold only started to fall after 1954. Coincidentally, the year in which the Stratocaster was introduced..... P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryUK Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 I love the look of the 52 model. I'd happily have a reissue 52 model if it wasn't a silly price. I did buy a gold top 60's studio to put a trapeze tailpiece on. But the quality was dire and it went back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 it was probaby treated like a firebird x Maybe a sunburst finish might boost sales? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damian Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 As has been mentioned, the first batch had the neck set at the wrong pitch which made the guitars almost unplayable. Even when the neck-set was corrected there were problems because of the Trapeze bridge - installed at the request of Les Paul himself. Both intonation and sustain suffered in comparison to the regular Gibson hardware of the time. After the pitch was corrected, however, players seemed to be happy with the guitar. It was Ted McCarty who decided to replace the Trapeze in '53 because of the aforementioned issues; "We went along (with Les Paul's Trapeze unit) for a couple of years, and I decided his trapeze was stupid. We didn't get any complaints from players, but it just didn't make sense. We had the Stoptail, which was much more functional, solid, and better all-round." As far as whether they were popular or disliked; In 1952 they sold 1,716 Gold Tops. This rose to 2,245 in '53 (although the last of these would have had the Stoptail fitted) so it was pretty successful. The numbers of guitars sold only started to fall after 1954. Coincidentally, the year in which the Stratocaster was introduced..... P. Hmmmm.....Not oddly, the angle of the Strat neck was never corrected.....Hmmm............... Interestingly, Leo's wife stopped him from her tail, ah, piece.......Hence, the tremolo ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 Maybe a sunburst finish might boost sales? And only then if Slash uses one on his next album...... P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damian Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 And only then if Slash uses one on his next album...... P. I think Slash is, um, trying to find someone to build him a Fender clone.......to be reissued as a SLASHTONE geetar.... He's also trying to put together another bad album....no, not bad a** album, just a bad album.......... He going for FLUSHTONE................ :unsure: .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 Hmmmm.....Not oddly, the angle of the Strat neck was never corrected.....Hmmm............... Interestingly, Leo's wife stopped him from her tail, ah, piece.......Hence, the tremolo ??? That's funny....Cause I can't use my wang bar into a hardtail, so I use it with a soft tail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 And only then if Slash uses one on his next album...... P. That doesn't make sense that he would. It is self tuning, isn't it? How would that be Sl00shtont? I don't think I would recognize him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 Interestingly, Leo's wife stopped him from her tail, ah, piece.......Hence, the tremolo ??? I thought she preferred a 'Vibrato...' ? P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.