I thought Gibson quality problems with overexagerrated, but...

[Chad]

Ive been on the lp forum since 2002. Its common knowledge the new les pauls are weight relieved.

Yeah, I'm a member there too, though I haven't signed on there for a long time. Doesn't the weight relieving go back even into the 80s/90s? Can't remember for sure.

[DonP]

Cliff,
Problem was, in 2000 when Gibson started doing this it wasn't common knowledge. Gibson had to be brought to the table kicking and screaming. It's been common knowledge since 2001, no thanks to Gibson. They wanted to keep that one under wraps...

There was a reason Gibson started doing this in 2000 and they also started offering flametops as standard. If you were too busy looking at the nice top, you didn't look at all the other problems...

Gibson started weight relieving in 1986. Flametops on Standards started up again in 2002, when Gibson made a huge amount of changes to the specs to make the Standard more like a 1950s LP. I have no problems with my holy 2002:ROTF:



If you are saying that every LP made since 1986 sucks because of weight relief holes I think you are mistaking. Get over the issue and just deal with the fact that this is how the Standard is made. Either you like the tone or you don't. If you don't like holes, pony up for a Historic.

[DonP]

I highly doubt it. The bodies are pretty thin to begin with. They most likely use a lighter piece of lower grade mahogany. I had a 7-string Schecter (007 Elite) that was all mahogany (set neck), and it was pretty light as well.
My Jackson Mark Morton model I just got is also all mahogany (neck thru), and it's pretty light as well, but the body is chambered, which means a lot more wood is taken out of the body compared to the weight relief holes in some Gibsons.

Here's what a chambered Les Paul looks like compared to one with weight relief holes.
Chambered: http://www.cloud9guitars.org/cloud9chamber.jpg

http://www.cloud9guitars.org/elegantroute.JPG

Here's the X-ray of the weight relieved: http://www.gratisweb.com/harrycallaham/CHLP1.JPGhttp://www.gratisweb.com/harrycallaham/CHLP1.JPG

In general, the lower weight mahogany is considered superior (at the moment) and is saved for the top of the line R9 models.


I say "at the moment" because it's all relative. In the early 70's, heavy guitars with huge amounts of sustain were the rage, and LP's were frequently over 10lbs. Now this is frowned upon. Times change. Amps have more gain so having a heavy high sustaining guitar is not as important any more.

What's funny is companies making LP copies. In the early 70's, LPs came with pancake bodies. The copy cats followed Gibson like lemmings off a cliff. While there is a place for the tone of the pancaked Norlin LPs, they will never be as popular as a 50's solid body.

Are we on the lespaulforum?:ROTF:

[emperor_black]

Maybe the holes are what gives the standard its tone and not the mahogany that everyone associates the tone to?

[Chrisb]

just the notion of a bolt on les paul sucks. there ain't a prayer some warmoth les paul is gonna smoke my R4 or R9.

This is just silliness. Until you have tried one I don't see how you can say that. Its the old straw man argument that a set thru/neck thru is better than a bolt on. Its crap, a well made bolt on has little if any difference.

[DonP]

This is just silliness. Until you have tried one I don't see how you can say that. Its the old straw man argument that a set thru/neck thru is better than a bolt on. Its crap, a well made bolt on has little if any difference.

I don't think so....

And I hate to get into the long tenon / short tenon debate, but I will say I like the tone of my long tenon R0 better than my other short tenon LPs. They all have different pickups, so it's not really an apples to apples comparison.

But a bolt on equal to a set neck / neck thru, I just don't think so.

[hippietim]

This is just silliness. Until you have tried one I don't see how you can say that. Its the old straw man argument that a set thru/neck thru is better than a bolt on. Its crap, a well made bolt on has little if any difference.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the notion of a bolt on guitar or that they are inferior. It's just an absurd thing for a Les Paul. It just ain't right.

Speaking of silliness, your assertion that some Warmoth Les Paul "will smoke the pants off of any Gibson" gets my vote for silliest post of the day. I had a Gibson Melody Maker with just a single P-90 that I'd put up to your challenge - I paid $100 for it.

[hippietim]

...and what makes you think I haven't played a Warmoth Les Paul?

BTW, one of my favorite guitars is a Warmoth Strat - which, unlike a Les Paul, is perfectly acceptable as a bolt on

[Chrisb]

Les Paul, is perfectly acceptable as a bolt on

Wait...but why would that be. If a bolt on Les Paul is terrible would not any bolt on be so? My main point in all this was to point out that Gibson has built their name largely on hype and image. This image is the les paul shape, the set neck the heavy mahogany construction and the thick carved top. Many other guitars rival this in sound, regardless of being bolt on, neck thru or set neck yet only the "Gibson" way is acceptable for a Les Paul. It has nothing to do with tone, its all about image.

So have you played a Warmoth Les Paul? If so how did the SOUND compare. Put aside the "bastardization of the Les Paul image" by virtue of being secured to the body with bolts instead of a glue joint.

Also answer me this, would people view a set neck strat in the same regard as a bolt-on LP? My guess would be yes.

[DonP]

It has nothing to do with tone, its all about image.

Better not tell those people paying over $200K for a 1959

[hippietim]

Wait...but why would that be. If a bolt on Les Paul is terrible would not any bolt on be so?

'Cuz.

My main point in all this was to point out that Gibson has built their name largely on hype and image.

Oh please, that is absurd. Hype and image? You don't suppose that 100+ years of making some of the most amazing instruments ever built has anything to do with their name?

This image is the les paul shape, the set neck the heavy mahogany construction and the thick carved top. Many other guitars rival this in sound, regardless of being bolt on, neck thru or set neck yet only the "Gibson" way is acceptable for a Les Paul. It has nothing to do with tone, its all about image.

Right. A Les Paul should be built one way. Anything else ain't a Les Paul. Guitar players are very sensitive to the image of their instruments. Next.

So have you played a Warmoth Les Paul? If so how did the SOUND compare. Put aside the "bastardization of the Les Paul image" by virtue of being secured to the body with bolts instead of a glue joint.

The couple I've played sounded fine. They didn't hold a candle to my Gibsons though. As for your jab there - dude, I lived an hour or so from Warmoth for 8 years. Warmoth mutts were all over the place in the Seattle area

Also answer me this, would people view a set neck strat in the same regard as a bolt-on LP? My guess would be yes.

A set neck Strat is nearly as wrong as a bolt-on LP.

[Bengal]

Don,
First of all, I was wrong, Gibson has been doing this a while. It still doesn't make my point any less valid. I'm not saying all LPs with holes suck. What I am saying is why doesn't Gibson put this on their website? Why don't they advertise this point. It may not be an issue to you, but I'm sure there are some that feel it is an issue. Just check out lespualforum and you'll find TONS of people who don't like it. SOme people want a solid body. For that price, I don't blame them...

Either way, it's a bad way to get the desired effect. Instead of using "premium" mahogany for a $2200 guitar, they use "lesser" mahogany and just drill holes in it. It's a cost cutting measure, plain and simple...

But saying its how Les Pauls are made is not quite right. Most people, including Gibson with the introduction of the thin binding and the flame top, want the LP to be like the 59's. 59's were not drilled up. So it's not really how they are made, or how they WERE made. Gibson bowed done to the older man that's bitching that LP's have gotten too heavy. That is their target market so I guess it's just good business for them...

I'll stick with my 11 pound, solid mahogany, 1980 Les Paul Heritage 80 Standard. All the Les Paul I need...

[Ralph E.]

It seems like no one gives a shit anymore...."ahh fuck it, it's good enough send it out."

Herein lies the whole problem, it's all about the benjamins...

Fuck the guy who's waited 15 months for his dream guitar...

What's that? The logo is fuckin' crooked? That just makes it rare.
What's that? 10 lbs. is too heavy? Lift some weights, you'll get used to it.
What's that? You wanted maple not rosewood? Ah, maple gets dirty quicker, you didn't want that anyway.
What's that? You wanted Duncans not EMG's? Tone is overrated.

Geez, these people, WTF do they expect for 3k anyway?

[circle of the tyrants]

Gibson still considers the LP Standard to be just that, their industry standard guitar, their flagship instrument. More importantly to them, the one that sells the most.
When asked what most DISLIKE about the LP Standard, weight was always the big issue. They did this to make customers happy. If someone wants a 10 lb. guitar built to the old specs, they can get a Historic or VOS. They even still put Mahogany tops on 50's reissue LP Customs, per the originals.
It's simply a way to modernize an old design. The mention of "50's" or "60's" is only referring to the neck profile. I'd say the reason "weight relieved body" is not mentioned on their website any more is because they assume everyone knows this by now. It's simply one of the newer specs of the LP Standard.

Jeesh. All these complaints about Gibson lately. I don't think it's an arguement that can be won anytime soon.

[hippietim]

Herein lies the whole problem, it's all about the benjamins...

Fuck the guy who's waited 15 months for his dream guitar...

What's that? The logo is fuckin' crooked? That just makes it rare.
What's that? 10 lbs. is too heavy? Lift some weights, you'll get used to it.
What's that? You wanted maple not rosewood? Ah, maple gets dirty quicker, you didn't want that anyway.
What's that? You wanted Duncans not EMG's? Tone is overrated.

Geez, these people, WTF do they expect for 3k anyway?

Ralph, you forgot the Six Million Dollar Man solution: We can rebuild it.