LarryUK Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 This is a serious thought. With all the advancement in guitars, should Gibson make a new Les Paul standard? From looking at the 'Bona Bird' and the 'Axcess' models, I think a new model would be good. New head stock? New Bridge? Better pickups? Curve the body more? New woods/materials? What else? They could easily get the testing done on here and it would be good for the company. I wouldn't say the Firebird X was a new model. It's more of a toy. I mean a guitar we could all afford and would cope with the PRS/Ibanez models. Let's have a serious discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryUK Posted March 4, 2012 Author Share Posted March 4, 2012 I am being realistic. They change the colour and call it a new model at the moment. The only variation on the original model is the Axcess. All the other's are variants, but the same.The Traditional is the same as a 59 reissue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awel Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 I agree the axcess is really nice and I love the adapted curves of the body, but they are still a bit expensive :(, I really would like to have a DC body shape, with a the cut for the belly as on the axcess and a floyd rose and 24 frets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 I get the idea, but I would have to say the current Standard IS the new model, and it is different than the 'origonal' Les Paul model. Besides the obvious of being chambered and weighing far less, nearly all the specs are a little different, including the bridge and in some cases the materials. Remember, the clambering started on the 'Supreme', and also the 'Class 5'(?). Weight relief holes are also not the "origonal" spec, but rather, a modernization, even though the IDEA is to make it closer because of the heavier woods that seem to be the norm. It seems to me, if you were to take an origonal burst, or the Historic version, and compare the differences to the current "Standard", that could be what you are talking about. Nearly every detail is different. At some point, if it was to be very different, it wouldn't be an LP, but another model altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Searcy Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Aside from the Floyd would that really be new? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryUK Posted March 4, 2012 Author Share Posted March 4, 2012 Aside from the Floyd would that really be new? I've always wanted a Hamer Sunburst. What is this? Imagine this with the Standard neck. Axcess cutouts and new bridge etc for the same price as a Standard? I'd be there like a shot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LT ED Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 No .Please leave it well alone,its been fine for all these years. If they start arseing about with it then it stops being a Les Paul.Yes I know there lots of ways it could be improved but somethings are best just left alone. just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strat-o-steve Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 They continuously make new LP models. There are too many now LOL. I think the Les Paul "Standard" should be left alone, with it's traditional appointments. Really, a standard, a custom and a studio would be just fine. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Searcy Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 I've always wanted a Hamer Sunburst. What is this? Imagine this with the Standard neck. Axcess cutouts and new bridge etc for the same price as a Standard? I'd be there like a shot This is a 1998 Les Paul Pro. I have a Studio version of this guitar. It was Gibsons attempt to make a totally new and updated Les Paul for the masses. Guitar players hated it just as they have hated every attempt to change and update any classic guitar. Guitar players don't want new. Guitar players want things to be just like they were in 1959 forever. 1980's Gibson DC-400 XPL Early 90's LP DC Just yesterday I heard a guitar player complaining that Ernie Ball has come up with a new line of Cobalt strings. "They didn't need all this gimmicky crap years ago when all the classic guitar records were recorded!" Just look at all the hate for the FireBird X. Is it really that much uglier than an Ibanez Fireman? No, but when you pack all those other changes into it it's too much for a guitar player to handle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryUK Posted March 4, 2012 Author Share Posted March 4, 2012 Aside from the Floyd would that really be new? Can you do a close up of the head? Ta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryUK Posted March 4, 2012 Author Share Posted March 4, 2012 Found one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Searcy Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Searcy Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 That Ibanez is just plain ugly and I swear that someone was drunk when they designed that guitar. Its a iceman flipped over and I can see it now. This is how it happened, after a long night out with the boys; Monday morning came way too soon. The Ibanez JCraft guys had a special order for a new lefty Iceman but the guitar was flipped the wrong way. One guy turned to the other; do you think they will notice? HA! They look like a kids shop class project to me. I can see how that would happen but it was actually designed by Paul Gilbert as his latest signature modle. There was a short run of them where he would sigh a COA and include a flanger pedal for only $10,000. My buddy Steve Benford makes a version of it that's a hell of a lot nicer for about 1/10th the price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveinspain Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 If you do all that why call it a Les Paul? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awel Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 If you do all that why call it a Les Paul? I agree about the name, but why not design a new guitar with a new name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Searcy Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 I agree about the name, but why not design a new guitar with a new name? They have. Dozens of them in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanH Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Simple answer: It wouldn't make sense to change it so that it looks like other manufacturers' Les Paul interpretations. If they really wanted to grab some more market share how about moving more in to the strat and superstrat market? I often wonder whether Fender and Gibson have some sort of gentleman's agreement to keep off each other's turf (apart from their other brands such as Charvel and Kramer where they qare doing that in the budget end.) On the other hand the reason could be that it's just better marketing to stick with the history of your brand and being known for innovation in guitar development (e.g. from Les Paul's innovations to robotic tuning and the like of today.) Why give your customer base with a mixed marketing message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Searcy Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Gibson and Fender have been swiping each others ideas since day one when Gibson build the Les Paul to answer Fenders Telecaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AXE® Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 That would be cool, not a huge fan with tremolo's but could block it. They do make one. It's called a hardtail and is pretty bad @ss! Hard to find one though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffster Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 I agree the axcess is really nice and I love the adapted curves of the body, but they are still a bit expensive :(, I really would like to have a DC body shape, with a the cut for the belly as on the axcess and a floyd rose and 24 frets What was surprising to me about the LP Axess is that they still kept the neck joint at the same fret as a standard, sure you have a countoured heel but why not move the bridge and pickup and have the neck joint a couple of frets higher. there is plenty of space between pickups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 No, they should not make a "new Les Paul" model! There are too many "Les Paul" models, now...IMHO. As to a "new model" Gibson guitar, that's affordalbe...They have, recently...The Midtown, is a new model. Not sure how long they'll make them? But, it's new! Gibson does this, now and then...at least in limited runs. Maybe you should submit a design, if you have something in mind? Or, have a good luthier build you, what you want, instead. What "I'd" rather see Gibson do, is build the basic "USA" versions, at what they call "Custom Shop Quality," and spec's, at USA prices...and make the Custom Shop, really that! One that makes "one of a kind," "special, very limited, editions," and all the "Rock Star" guitars, with their various spec's. And also, to keep the up charges, for different colors, and added features (like a lyre vibrola on an SG, or whatever), to a smaller percentage, cost increase, like they used to do. But, people in Hell, want ice water, and air-conditioning, too. So...??? CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich W Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 What "I'd" rather see Gibson do, is build the basic "USA" versions, at what they call "Custom Shop Quality," and spec's, at USA prices...and make the Custom Shop, really that! My sentiments exactly. No need for a new Les Paul model. Just go back to making them of the same quality they used to be, even 10 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanH Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Gibson and Fender have been swiping each others ideas since day one when Gibson build the Les Paul to answer Fenders Telecaster. Would it be fair to say that neither of these took off? Perhaps that's why they don't walk on each other's turf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 This is a serious thought. With all the advancement in guitars, should Gibson make a new Les Paul standard? From looking at the 'Bona Bird' and the 'Axcess' models, I think a new model would be good. New head stock? New Bridge? Better pickups? Curve the body more? New woods/materials? What else? I'm comlpetely open to the idea of a new guitar but if you change all the above then why call it a Les Paul Standard? Call it a Les Paul 'Futura' or a Les Paul 'Nova' or something but not Les Paul 'Standard'. Although, as we all know, the 'Standard' has gone through a series of changes - and pretty much year-on-year in the period '52 to '60 - it did become settled down to the extent where mention of the name Les Paul Standard, for most players, means a single-cut, carved-top, twin-humbucker, 22 fret hunk of mahogany, maple and rosewood, with a t-o-m bridge and stop-tailpiece. This is what a Les Paul Standard IS and has been ever since 1974 until the rather unwise adoption (IMHO) of a chambered body-style. Nothing wrong with the concept of a chambered body but the resulting instrument should have followed previous practice and become known as the Les Paul 'Lite' or perhaps something else.... The 'Standard Traditional' (or 'Traditional Standard'?) should have been called simply the 'Standard' (again IMHO). I can see where circumstances will dictate some changes to the model - suck as Baked Maple replacing rosewood - and some designs will be tweaked - such as the Nashville replacing the ABR-1 - but the essence of the Standard, IMHO, should remain a constant. P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinh Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 The history of the major guitar manufacturers with "new" models does not exactly encourage them. . What's popular? Strat (50's) Telecaster (50's) Jazzmaster/Jaguar (early 60's) Les Paul (50's) SG (early 60's) Explorer/Flying V (50's) ES 335 (50's) Rickenbacker 300 and 400 series (50's, early 60's) Various Gretches ( all 50's/ early 60's) P-bass, Jazz bass, Rickenbacker bass (all 1950's) These 50's/early 60's designs probably make up at least 50% of the market, and maybe 80% of the market for the major American producers. Very few new designs by established manufacturers have caught on. When someone does come out with a new design that the market likes ( PRS, Ibanez "super strats" etc ) the maufacturer then tends to stick with the basic design, ringing ever more changes from the same template, instead of trying another new concept. The guitar market is very conservative, and would rather see a new feature added to an existing template ( Foyd Rose Les Paul, Tele with pizeo bridge etc. ) than a new instrument. The historical market hasn't encouraged consumers to buy new designs either. A Jaguar cost more than a Strat in 62. Would you rather have a 62 Jaguar or a 62 strat now? Buying a familiar design is a guarantee of good resale value. If you look at the innovation that occured in the traditional manufacturers guitar designs between say 1950 and 1965 ,and compare it to what's happened between 1965 and now, the problem is pretty clear. Everyone wants new designs, but no-one wants to buy them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.