Shnate McDuanus Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 I, too, must contest the notion that EVERY player (or at least every worthy player) should have both a Les Paul and a Strat. As someone who primarily plays high-gain metal music, I don't see a single place in my repertoire where a Strat (or comparable single-coil guitar) would be more useful to me than a Les Paul (or comparable single-coil guitar.) If I'm doing old-school stuff and it calls for less gain, I'll use less gain on the amp. If I'm doing newer stuff which calls for more gain, I'll turn the gain on the amp up. I can cover all of those bases with humbuckers. In fact, single coils, because they're noisier, would only irritate me if I tried to use them for my music. Even when I'm doing Ritchie Blackmore or Yngwie Malmsteen (both well-known for the use of Strats,) I find that my SG does just fine. Same for Iron Maiden. So...is it to be implied that I need to expand my repertoire in order to find music to play where a Strat should be used? Because, if so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonzoboy Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 As an obsessive tone chaser I love the different tones that are available from different guitars.I don't understand Fender/Strat haters for the life of me.I don't hear anything unpleasant in the tone of a "good" Strat.I have a '65 Strat and everyone that has heard it has been blown away by the beautiful pronounced chime and "quack" it has. Of course back in the 60s there wasn't as diligent quality control as there is today and they turned out some dogs too. All in all Strats have been a part of some of the greatest guitar oriented recordings ever made and I doubt very mucch that "all" Strat haters find these songs unpleasant.Or course there have been historical recordings made with Les Pauls but we mustn't forget to give the Strat the credit it's due. I agree fully with the statement that every guitarist should have at least one of each-I have 2 Les Pauls and 5 Strats and they all have their own unique voices.I intend to buy more Les Pauls as I love the variations between the different models and I will quite possibly buy more Strats.Right now I have my sights on a Rickenbacker 360/12.Even though I already have a Vox Phantom XII that I love the sound of they sound so different whereas the Rick sounds only like a Rick can the Phantom XII sounds like a cross between a Strat and a harpsichord.Such is the life of a hopeless tone chaser-always craving a different colour for his tone palette. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duende Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Not to state the obvious, but you've completely over looked something - read up on wikipedia on what a citrus fruit is - http://en.wikipedia....f_citrus_fruits Beyond that, "comparing apples and oranges" is a well accepted idiom. In case this is way over your head, read up on it here - http://en.wikipedia....les_and_oranges And I quote: "The idiom, comparing apples and oranges, refers to the apparent differences between items which are popularly thought to be incomparable or incommensurable, such as apples and oranges." We can all depend Wikipedia - the great arbiter of knowledge. . B) BAZINGA!!! - even in my half tired state, you have fallen for one of my classic pranks... I'm still going with apples and dinosaurs - and the thought that some people may think of 'apples and oranges' as such an excellent simile is hilarious!! :) (but I could 'care less' what they think anyway) LMAO @ 'care less' Matt P.S For anyone likes brain teasers there is genuine irony in this topic re apples and oranges (real irony too - not 'rain on your wedding day or 'a free ride when you've already paid' irony!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manse Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 I'll look for them! Hen's Tooth sounds familiar. Big store, singles from all over the world, right between a Sam Ash and Guitar Center. The Speckled was outstanding. I also picked up a Scottish, but can't remember which. Always on the lookout for Tenants XX which I had in my youth but doesn't seem to exist anymore. Also currently enjoying from the last stop: rct Spookily, the Hendricks gin is the only spirit I have in the house at the moment. I have been rediscovering gin recently - and the only 2 I like enough to drink neat, straight from the fridge are Hendrick's and Sipsmith. Sipsmith is really good - has a smooth vanilla taste - but they make it is small batches in a tiny copper still in London - I bet it would cost a fortune by the time it got to you over the pond. My guesses for what Scottish beer you had would be (if it was really good stuff) either McEwens Champion or Innis & Gunn....another 2 of my faves. must go and get a cold one now..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EVOL! Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 I don't understand Fender/Strat haters for the life of me. Not that your post was directed at me (I ain't that vain), but I am not a Fender hater. I think Fender makes some killer guitars (Tele, Jaguar, Jazzmaster, etc). Just have zero love for the Strat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duende Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 I love the booze comparisons! I gave up smoking in 1999, but In cigarettes terms, I rather like the idea of the Strat (because it has a bite to it's sound) being a marlboro cigarette; or maybe even an Old Holborn roll up. Hmmm how I miss old holborn Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FirstMeasure Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 I don't think there is a competition. It is in the minds of people (usually) trying to sell something. I have owned and gigged a strat and a les paul, at the same time, for most of my life. And a tele. And bunches of others. "competition" between the two is best left to those that don't really know all that much about guitars and how to use them. rct exactly! They are my right and left arm, can't do much without either of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundergod Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Why isn't the Tele a rival for the Les Paul and not the Strat? 'cause even the most hardcore Les Paul lover knows the LP is no rival for a Tele. So they have to take their fight to contender #2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjay777 Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 Rock and Roll allies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc3c46 Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 'cause even the most hardcore Les Paul lover knows the LP is no rival for a Tele. So they have to take their fight to contender #2 +1 Ever since after all these years I got me a Tele I do agree. Never wanted one before, 'cause associated it with Country. However now I just love it. It rocks, it is a bluesmachine and so comfortable to play. And it is said: "You can't hide behind a Tele". P.S. Still would never part with my EC Strat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 I am afraid I gave you a minus one for using the term "apples and oranges" ... How I hate that over used and completely inaccurate saying! Apples and oranges are both fruits, both have vitamin c, both are approximately the same size, both have skins etc. i.e they are alike! The same man who invented "apples and oranges" also said he "could care less" when I mentioned this - and later that day observed an irony, just because it rained after the weather forecast was on tv ! Please join me in the revolution by replacing this with '"they are like apples and dinosaurs" to express the diversity of two things! Matt I thought the British version was "chalk and cheese"? Better than "apples and dinosaurs" I think is "sausages and hair" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4Hayden Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 I often wonder how the Strat and the Les Paul both got to a point where they were compared to each other or were considered rivals. Let's just take the normal configuration only in terms of one having single coils only and the other humbuckers. One is a thinner sounding Guitar and the other is a warmer thicker sounding Guitar. The Gibson is a solid body archtop, the Fender is not. They are both so different in so many ways. Is it because they both came out within a couple of years of each other and were among the first of the truly accepted solid bodies? Why isn't the Tele a rival for the Les Paul and not the Strat as it was the Tele that made Gibson step up production of their first solid body Guitar in 1952, two years before the Strat. Having a fatter sound, should the Tele not be in comptetition with the Gibson? This theory of competition between the Strat and the Les Paul has always confounded me. Maybe the biggest reason is the famous Guitarists down the years who switched from one to the other. Clapton, Townsend and Beck moved from Gibsons to Fenders Strats while Jimmy Page moved to Gibsons after playing Teles and even Strats. These are just my personal thoughts on this and this could prove to be a devisive subject for some. I'm hoping for some calm and measured responses. I own both Gibson & Fender,on the strat vs tele the telecaster has pick ups placed different to give it that twang sound, The way the volume & tone knobs are placed on a tele turns me off on looks along. A strat with HHS pick ups & 5 way switching sounds close to a humbucker or a tele depending on where you have it set. But I think the artist that used Gibson & Fender in the 60's & 70's put both brands way ahead of the competition. welcome to the forum !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duende Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 Better than "apples and dinosaurs" I think is "sausages and hair" I like that!! I also like "floyd roses and sherbert lemons" too! Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damian Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This_Dying_Soul Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 I like both. I think the so-called competition is more in the minds of the companies that make them... the Les Paul is Gibson's flagship solid body. The Strat is Fender's flagship solid body. Both sound and appearance are completely different. Each company seems to have a basic tone that differs slightly from each of it's respective models but is distinct to that brand. Understanding that someone like Fred wouldn't like a strat but might like other Fender instruments just like there are some that may feel the same about the Les Paul who love other Gibson models; I would say though, everyone should have at least one Gibson and on Fender in their guitar family. Personally, I have a Fender, 2 Gibbies and a Gretsch - so I think I pretty much have my basic vintage sounds covered. Now either an Ibanez or a Jackson are all I need so that I have my "metal guitar" sounds...yes I realize that my Strat and Gibbies can do metal, but there's something distictive about Ibanez and Jackson's tones that the older brands just don't quite get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swampash Posted November 18, 2011 Author Share Posted November 18, 2011 My collection at the moment comprises of: 2010 American Special Strat 2010 American Deluxe Tele 2011 Gibson Les Paul Traditional Honey Burst I'm still in the process of paying off the Gibson, then my next purchase will be a Gretsch Duo Jet and then once that's paid off it will be a Rickenbacker 360/12. And then it will be a Jazzmaster or Jaguar and then.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fl00dsm0k3 Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 never played either one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silenced Fred Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 Oh geez... I come back to this? like Evol said, nothing wrong with single coil guitars, nothing wrong with fender, just tons wrong with a strat. I understand some people love em but the need to say that every guitar player should own one is rubbish. I think everyone should have an acoustic as well as a harmonica and harmonica holder that at any given moment, you can bust out for a folk bluegrass jam, because that's guitar picking. However, unlike some people, I'm not a communist and don't speak in absolute terms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundergod Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 Apples and dinosaurs! That I agree with. NEver understood the comparison, both are fruits and have lots of things in common. Same goes for the "could care less" comment, when it should be "I couldn't care less" (meaning your level of caring is 0 ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krock Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 I prefer the sound of an esquire and tele over a strat anyday. But Ive always thought that those who select strats pic them because their tone fits the genre of music they play or they like the playability Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FirstMeasure Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 I like both. I think the so-called competition is more in the minds of the companies that make them... the Les Paul is Gibson's flagship solid body. The Strat is Fender's flagship solid body. Both sound and appearance are completely different. Each company seems to have a basic tone that differs slightly from each of it's respective models but is distinct to that brand. Understanding that someone like Fred wouldn't like a strat but might like other Fender instruments just like there are some that may feel the same about the Les Paul who love other Gibson models; I would say though, everyone should have at least one Gibson and on Fender in their guitar family. Personally, I have a Fender, 2 Gibbies and a Gretsch - so I think I pretty much have my basic vintage sounds covered. Now either an Ibanez or a Jackson are all I need so that I have my "metal guitar" sounds...yes I realize that my Strat and Gibbies can do metal, but there's something distictive about Ibanez and Jackson's tones that the older brands just don't quite get. I agree, nothing playes metal better than a Jackson or Ibanez. Jackson's are my preference, I like the chunkier tone they get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morkolo Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 McDonald's fries vs. Wendy's fries, Coke vs. Pepsi, Wolverine vs. Batman... People like to compare things. It's just part of human nature. .. and yea, Wolverine would tear Batman a new one. Oh come on Frank Miller's Batman beat Superman... Superman! hahahaha Anyway as for the Strat vs. Les Paul thing, I find my taste runs in spurts. I'll like the Strat more for a while, then I'll like the Les Paul more for a while. I love both to death but feel more at home on the Stratocaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This_Dying_Soul Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 I agree, nothing playes metal better than a Jackson or Ibanez. Jackson's are my preference, I like the chunkier tone they get. 2 guitars I regret selling the most are my Japanese made, late 1990's Jackson Pro Series Dinky super-strat and my Ibanez Pro Line PL2660 (ironically, a copy of the Jackson RR Custom that was close enough for Jackson to sue over it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookieman15061 Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 I am afraid I gave you a minus one for using the term "apples and oranges" ... How I hate that over used and completely inaccurate saying! Apples and oranges are both fruits, both have vitamin c, both are approximately the same size, both have skins etc. i.e they are alike! The same man who invented "apples and oranges" also said he "could care less" when I mentioned this - and later that day observed an irony, just because it rained after the weather forecast was on tv ! Please join me in the revolution by replacing this with '"they are like apples and dinosaurs" to express the diversity of two things! Matt Ahh like men and women essentially both human with many similarities but as we know, vastly different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duende Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 Ahh like men and women essentially both human with many similarities but as we know, vastly different. 'If' people did use the saying 'apples and oranges' to express how two things have a lot in common (with the exception of a few minor details), then your example makes perfect sense ; unfortunately the saying isn't used in this way, it is used by people to express a significant difference in two things. e.g ordinary man in the street notices a grasshopper on the sidewalk and then looks up at a man washing the office windows on the 101st floor and laughs to himself "aw man; they're like apples and oranges" (except... er... no... they aren't actually LOL) The saying is so common, that it has become almost like a modern day type of mantra; that is not only an annoying form of cliche, but more significantly it is completely inaccurate - in the same way that 'could care less' is - what people actually really mean is they 'couldn't care less' LOL. Anyway thank goodness (I thought I was going mad/er) but there are several people who argue this better This is from by Scott A Sandford, NASA Ames Research centre, Mnt View, California http://www.improbabl...1-3-apples.html We have all been present at discussions (or arguments) in which one of the combatants attempts to clarify or strengthen a point by comparing the subject at hand with another item or situation more familiar to the audience or opponent. More often than not, this stratagem instantly results in the protest that "you're comparing apples and oranges!" This is generally perceived as being a telling blow to the analogy, since it is generally understood that apples and oranges cannot be compared. However, after being the recipient of just such an accusation, it occurred to me that there are several problems with dismissing analogies with the comparing apples and oranges defense. First, the statement that something is like comparing apples and oranges is a kind of analogy itself. That is, denigrating an analogy by accusing it of comparing apples and oranges is, in and of itself, comparing apples and oranges. More importantly, it is not difficult to demonstrate that apples and oranges can, in fact, be compared (see figure 1). Both samples were prepared by gently desiccating them in a convection oven at low temperature over the course of several days. The dried samples were then mixed with potassium bromide and ground in a small ball-bearing mill for two minutes. One hundred milligrams of each of the resulting powders were then pressed into a circular pellet having a diameter of 1 cm and a thickness of approximately 1 mm. Spectra were taken at a resolution of 1 cm-1 using a Nicolet 740 FTIR spectrometer. Figure 2 shows a comparison of the 4000-400 cm-1 (2.5-25 mm) infrared transmission spectra of a Granny Smith apple and a Sunkist Navel orange. Conclusions Not only was this comparison easy to make, but it is apparent from the figure that apples and oranges are very similar. Thus, it would appear that the comparing apples and oranges defense should no longer be considered valid. This is a somewhat startling revelation. It can be anticipated to have a dramatic effect on the strategies used in arguments and discussions in the future. Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.