Interesting read about Les Paul quality

[Guitarzan]

Re: Interesting read about Les Paul quality

My cousin worked at the Gibson factory for a few months and couldn't stand the lack of care for the instruments. He quit not too long after he started and realized that the company is run by businessmen, not musicians.

He's had a PRS Santana II ever since and sold all his Gibsons.

[abalonevintage]

Re: Interesting read about Les Paul quality

There is also black Korina.......

Guitar industry people always refer to Korina as being African Mahogany....While incorrect, the author of that article was implying Korina...

Again, too much errant stuff to waste time on.

-eric

[BigDaddyD]

Re: Interesting read about Les Paul quality

I basically feel that way about almost all guitar companies. I haven't played any mass produced guitars where they are ALL great. Infact, most are ok...nothing special. Then there are some that are righteous and some that blow. That is about right. The average is just that...average/ok. A company like Gibson pumps out so many instruments, that it would be impossible for all of them to be good....that is why the most expensive are usually better, but not always. A builder like Tom Anderson, who builds less than 1,000 instruments a year has a way better chance of keeping quality high.

[pro-fusion]

Re: Interesting read about Les Paul quality

I have several reasons for bashing Gibson in recent years:

1. they are WAY too expensive for what they are.
2. the company has given itself entirely over to nostalgia.
3. the quality of the guitars, on average, isn't commensurate with their pricetag.
4. they have focused more on producing "pretty" guitars, while their playability (in my opinion) has dropped dramatically even from those '70s guitars that are bashed more enthusiastically than the current ones.

And I say all this as someone who used to think of himself as a "Les Paul guy". In recent years, I have become a "Jackson Soloist guy", but I have a lot of experience with Les Pauls and other Gibsons. I haven't played as many as the guy in the interview, but I know what he's talking about. One of the top five guitars I've owned was a 1981 LP Custom "black beauty" that I bought at a local used guitar store that usually has a wall of used LPs for sale. I didn't really have the money to spare at the time, but this guitar stood out so dramatically from the other LPs on display that I had to get it, regardless of my finances. There was just something about it--the perfect LP Custom, with an ungodly easy-to-play fretboard and the right combination of beef and scream in the sound, with none of the nasal nastiness that can afflict LPs. Sadly, I had to sell it a couple of years later in order to pay the rent during some hard times. I still miss that guitar.

But my first LP was a dog. I had only been playing about three years, most of those with a cheapo Memphis LP copy, when I splurged and got a 1979 LP Standard. I was inexperienced and blinded by the Gibson name, with no 'old hand' around to steer me in the right direction. Not only was this LP nasal and unpleasant sounding, but it played stiff. I ended up playing that Memphis more often--even my college roommate (also a guitarist) thought the Memphis was a better guitar. I ended up trading that LP in on a Strat, if I recall correctly.

As far as the '90s era LPs, I've never played a single one that was better than that '81 Black Beauty, which was made during a supposedly crappy era of Gibson's history. Most newer LP's seem to have cruddy fret jobs that aren't very inviting for a player--and that's death in a $1500-2000 guitar.

Of course, I'm now accustomed to the Soloist sound and neck, as well as the ability to easily play above the 15th fret, which you can't easily do on an LP. But no way should a LP cost more than a USA Soloist, if quality is the issue.

[Lordofgain]

Re: Interesting read about Les Paul quality

I solved my jones for a paul by purchasing a Heritage 150. Natural back (so you see it is all one piece and definately mahogony), tips the scales right at 8 pounds, plays beautifully all over the neck with very even tones. Oh yea and kicka customer service!
See, my Gibson rocks!

[Greg Crowe]

Re: Interesting read about Les Paul quality

I'd be the last person who could add a meaningful comment to this thread. I haven't played a Les Paul since around 1984 or so. Way back then, I used to have a 1979 Les Paul Standard and a 1981 Les Paul Black Beauty Active Artist. Both were excellent guitars with perfect necks and fretwork. The sound of a Les Paul with a DiMarzio Super Distortion is godlike. I traded the 79 towards the 81 and then sold off the 81 for $500 around 1984 when nobody wanted a Les Paul and everyone had to have a Kramer Baretta with a Floyd Rose.

My experience with Les Pauls were that they were $500 guitars used and $750 new. With the price increases over the past 15 years, I don't even look at them. The horrible fret access past the 17th fret would keep me from ever owning one again.

[kremit]

Re: Interesting read about Les Paul quality

thanks for the link to the site ! some interesting stuff there. supports the reasons I laid my Les Paul and Explorer down and picked up a KV.....

[Bad-Brad]

Re: Interesting read about Les Paul quality

To say that all Gibson Suck is painting with a very wide brush. While I am not an LP fan I do own a SG that I love. With regards to construction it is a 10. Like any large scale guitar manufacturer there are good and bad axes. As a buyer it is up to me to find the goods ones. The basic construction and design doesn’t change. I would not buy a newer SG as the quality of woods has decreased due to availability. The one I own is an 85 and a limited run. My SG gives easy access to the upper frets with no problem. The guitar is very light and balanced very well. The acoustic sustain and tone is also very good and combined with the 2 open double coils the sound is distinctive and unique. I was looking for this sound and that is why I purchased it. Making a statement saying that mahogany body guitars can be to dense is truly ludicrous. A true quality and branded Guitar will have it’s own unique signature. I have the luxury of being able to afford to purchase guitars that have this unique signature rather than trying to get a guitar that emulates them. So a heavy celled mahogany body will have a totally different signature than a light celled body. If this is observed when constructing the guitar then the unique sound signature of the guitar will be maintained.

I agree with the statements that Gibson has not maintained this in their newer line and is resting on the model names for marketing their newer product. This is unfortunate but happens when the pencil necked geeks take over an organization. There are still good new models out there but it is necessary to cheery pick these from the herd.

With regards to the Charvel line if I were on a limited budget I would choose an MIJ Charvel over a Gibson simply for its value and versatility. In the example of my SG I had been looking for about 2 years before I found the one I wanted. I paid under $600.00 US with flight case and the Blue Book is double that. More important it was the best playing, constructed and sounding SG I had found to date.

In closing as a true non-brand musician I am open to all manufactures. I do look for guitars that I personally like whether it is sound signature, versatility, playing action or construction. There are always good and bad with any manufacturer. When you paint all with one brush this is unfortunate it shows your lack of understanding and will have a negative effect on your creative path by limiting your style and sound to a very narrow one.

This is just my opinion and I fully accept others negative feelings about the Gibson line. I always try and have an open mind with all manufactures with certain exceptions of course, which are solely based on personal experience and taste.

BB