Rabs Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 The profile of this thing is WEIRD!! In the earlier photos they seemed to need to cut the neck heel back a bit which they did (or it was just at an odd angle), but look at how thin it is at the cutaway... WEIRD!!! This is the old pic And the newest pics with that odd profile (I still want to try one if they are ever released :)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buxom Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 This guitar looks bad and Gibson should feel bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bender 4 Life Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Mrs.B. already said I can has one when/if they're released.......anybody know what this beauty is called? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabs Posted October 15, 2012 Author Share Posted October 15, 2012 Mrs.B. already said I can has one when/if they're released.......anybody know what this beauty is called? On the page its just called the Prototype by Bruce Kunkel but ive also heard it dubbed the "Less Paul" :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan H Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 On the page its just called the Prototype by Bruce Kunkel but ive also heard it dubbed the "Less Paul" :) Well since the Les Paul was named after the man who invented it, this one should be called the Bruce Kunkel. Nobody will buy it, because who the hell is Bruce Kunkel? And thus the world will be saved from ugly Les Paul mutations such as this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightTimeConcealmentX91 Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 removed comment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaleb Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Looks the lovechild of an LP Standard and a Rick Turner Model 1.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dub-T-123 Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Way awkward for a Les paul I think. It is ok for a guitar to sound distorted, but actually be distorted? I don't like it. It looks deformed! It actually looks a lot less awkward (as far as ergonomics) than a normal LP to me. I think it looks pretty sweet actually. The overall shape of it is pretty awesome. I'd just like to see it in a solid color like baby blue instead of that flame top. Then again, I'm not in any way fixated on maintaining the "traditional" designs. I tend to prefer them, but the classics would have never been created if it weren't for experimentation.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowboyBillyBob1 Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 quote name='Caroline64' timestamp='1350270408' post='1268672'] Well since the Les Paul was named after the man who invented it, this one should be called the Bruce Kunkel. Nobody will buy it, because who the hell is Bruce Kunkel? And thus the world will be saved from ugly Les Paul mutations such as this. Les Paul had little if anything to do with the design of the Les Paul guitar. He just endorsed it and got paid a certain amount for each one that was sold. The whole guitar was basically designed by Gibson president Jim McCarty. Since the LP did not sell well, younger player did not even know who Les Paul was and if they did they considered him an old fuddy duddy, Gibson stopped production of this poor selling guitar and redesigned it to the SG. Les hated it and refused to let them use his name on it. They reissued the design after Clapton and Bloomfield started using the "older" sunburst LP's. I don't think they can call this new model a Les Paul but I am not a lawyer so IDK. IMO it looks kinda cool. Gibson made some wierd shaped stuff back in the 50's.. Flying V, Moderne, and Explorer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 I don't find it that objectionable at all. In fact there's a certain elegance to much of the design IMO. A few awkward bits too, though. I do not like the curved 'step' on the rear of the guitar. Perhaps it would be OK if you have a pronounced beer-belly but it looks like there would be a certain amount of discomfort (for me) with a two-level back. I suspect I'd still prefer a Les Paul but I'd give it a shot. I doubt it will balance well on a strap (as I said last time) owing to the top strap-button being level with the 18th fret - two frets beyond that of a Standard - combined with the amount of wood-mass removed from the body-blank but I've been wrong before.... Perhaps Gibson could make them from very heavy lumps of Mahogany? That might redress the balance (as it were). P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btoth76 Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Hello! I don't know what can I say about it...At least they shouldn't call it a Les Paul. Cheers... Bence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Searcy Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Well since the Les Paul was named after the man who invented it, this one should be called the Bruce Kunkel. Nobody will buy it, because who the hell is Bruce Kunkel? And thus the world will be saved from ugly Les Paul mutations such as this. The Les Paul wasn't designed by Les Paul. It was designed by Ted McCarrty. This is what Les Pail designed. This is the "Les Paul" he actually played I like the new guitar. Very cool guitar and one glance shows that it is clearly recognizable as a Les Paul. More so than either of my DCs or any of the 61 reissues we keep seeing pop up that everyone loves. Glad to see Gibson working on new ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan H Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Honest mistake guys, happens to everyone :P -Ryan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Searcy Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Honest mistake guys, happens to everyone :P -Ryan I hear ya. I'm just trying to figure out why this one odd Les Paul has everyone panties in a bunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidblast Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 I don't see the problem. Especially since no one from Gibson has even said they're calling it a Les Paul and I doubt the plans would be to replace the existing design with this. To each his own, it's not objectionable to me, If it was a PRS, I'd bet half of us would be drooling over it. To me, it's innovation in progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 ...no one from Gibson has even said they're calling it a Les Paul... Oddly enough, KB, I was going to make the same point in my above post, but.... I'd never seen it so described (officially) but I had a nagging feeling that I had seen something, somewhere before and, sure enough, the 'Les Paul MODEL' silkscreen is there on the peghead. But I agree that it's not going to be a replacement for the Les Paul Standard. If it's a new model to be added to the line-up then Why On Earth Not? Anyone here remember the Les Paul 'Jumbo' model? Hardly the most aesthetically appealling guitar to bear Les' revered name. P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badbluesplayer Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 This is the new Les Paul. And Martians are invading. Blue is red and up is down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZenKen Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 It's about time we had one of the majors coming up with a nice blended interface between the neck and the body. The 60 year old designs we all know and love were created when guitarists did not often venture into the higher regions of the fretboard and thus were not bothered by a big chunk of wood in their way. I like it and I don't really care what the marketing guys decide to call it. Gibson owns Les' name and I suppose they can do what they want with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmer Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Hello! I don't know what can I say about it...At least they shouldn't call it a Les Paul. Cheers... Bence That. and...it looks like neck and body are 1 piece...looks like, it probably is not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidblast Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 and let's all remember how Les was LAUGHED out of the Gibson head office when he showed them the log.. Then Leo started making a solid body electric (what's now the Telecaster), "Find the kid with the log..." Pippy you are right, the post was right here in this forum, and it DID have Les Paul on the HS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AXE® Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 I want three. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTD Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Whatever it is called, I would love to see/play one in person. I don't think the Les Paul estate trustees or beneficiaries would have any issue if this thing were called a Les Paul. Some one is still getting royalties and this joule just add to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTD Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Not sure where "joule" came from, should say "would" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffster Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 The guitar in the first pcitures of the OP looks like they took a normal guitar and re-shaped it, rather than engineer the neck joint to be small from construction, the updated pic may be the opposite, meaning designed from construction. But the Les Paul Axcess joint still looks better, and plays great on a thinner lighter guitar with a belly cutaway and now available with a stop tail rather than the tremolo all while keeping the cool and classic appearance of an LP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 The guitar in the first pcitures of the OP looks like they took a normal guitar and re-shaped it, rather than engineer the neck joint to be small from construction, the updated pic may be the opposite, meaning designed from construction. As far as I can discern, Riffster, the 'original' instrument and the 'final' version are one and the same guitar. The figure is 100% identical. 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.