Les paul players

[turtlemuscle]

yeah, i think almost all serious guitarist will own a LP type and strat type guitar some time in their life.

 

[subversion]

i own it for its tone, to me the Les Paul has one of the most boring outline ever...

 

[gsonique]

and heavy ....

 

[tany]

gimme a strat anytime! i want a tele too, but LP doesnt work for me man.

cant take the weight, and the single cut

 

[neuro182]

Tele are single cut too.

 

[tany]

LP single cut doesnt work for me. i never tried teles, but i did once. the single cut feels better to me

 

[ciel]

hurhur gassing for an SG. my LP gives me a shoulder ache if i play it for more than 2 hours hurhurhur but still i Lurve it. hurhur

 

[Fooddha]

i own it for its tone, to me the Les Paul has one of the most boring outline ever...

but dont you think the carved top just has the gentle swell of a girl's belly .... very very sexy in my opinion

 

[subversion]

whatever appeal it holds, it's a legacy of defiance- Les Paul prefers his guitar to have a flat-top but Gibson says NO...

 

[df]

Damn Gibson! Flat tops are the best!!

 

[subversion]

curved tops add to co$t, not to tone...

 

[df]

Then why don't they make all LPs flat tops to cut cost? Flat tops look tons better than arch tops...

 

[subversion]

as mentioned earlier- Gibson defiance... the arched top, by the time Gibson became well-known in the guitar industry, is too synonymous with the company to be rid off...

Les Paul's personal fav is his Recording model, absolutely flat top...

 

[df]

Man...bad Gibson! Needs a spank in the ass...I guess arch tops might be the reason why Gibson stood out from the rest...

 

[subversion]

definitely- people like the arched top, despite it contributing zilch to tone. it's touch of class... the Les Paul recording was discontinued shortly after its intro...

 

[skink83]

haha actually I think the recording model(if its the one he is holding) is quite ugly, not because its flat, but the pickups, the pickguard...aiya everything la. But to each own's preference la. Flat top, arched top, all nice la if the wood has nice grain etc etc.

Like all shapes of bodies, excluding hollow bodied ones, I guess cannot say zilch to tone la, most probably less significant as compared to like pickup differences and wood type etc. Honestly, I can't really tell the difference, but I'm sure some people have more sensitive ears to pick up such things la. Moreover with the use of effects, EQ on the amp etc, tone is often what you make it out to be.

But I do agree though, if it was made flat top and much cheaper, it will be good for everyone. But oh well, a business is a business. 8)

 

[subversion]

the Recording model was made to sound good in the recording Studio, without costing too much. when the Recording model was designed, it very much disregarded design eccentricities, even the pickups in it wasn't humbucking until certain switches are engaged. due to its extensive quirkiness, it was discontinued for being unpopular...

ached top has no tonal contribution in solid guitars, unlike its role in hollow units, which was very much Gibson's forte before the Les Paul was conceived.

 

[skink83]

Hmm...this seems to suggest otherwise?

http://www.rutherfordmusic.com/avion.htm

 

[subversion]

as the literature correctly stated, the arched top adds mass to address the string resonance & tone. the flat top les pauls weren't any thinner for this very reason. it's an issue of mass...

todays technology allows even a more diversified method in addressing this issue, eg: Ibanez's Prestige SZ has a solid mass block beneath the bridge, for resonance dissipation. do note that this Ibanez model has an arched top, if the arched top itself is a sure formula in doing so, why supplement it with such a contraption?

pic: tone block in Ibanez SZ

with regards to resonance dissipation, Yamaha's version is its AIR technology, presented in the RGXA2:

 

[gsonique]

+1

so more is better ....yes !!

Recently i change my strat bridge set to heavier type ...definate improvement !!