#1
I am writing a brand analysis paper on Les Paul and I want to add some personality...so if you play or have played a Les Paul tell me what you thought about it. Also, what does the brand name itself mean to you?
Thanks!!!
#2
Your first mistake is that Les Paul is not a brand, Gibson is, so I would suggest looking into that first.
#3
well, ive played a les paul a few times, and it is not the favourite of mine, they are way to overrated, fender's (to me) I REPEAT to me are a better choice with the faster neck and style and the brand name of gibson to me means over priced material epiphone is a way better choice then gibson only because you save at least 500 for pretty much the same sound and style, different wood but amazing, les paul 7/10 i would love to pick up a flying v from gibson but other then that im sticking to fender or prs and if you looking for insight on these go onto music123.com and click on the les pauls and go to customer reviews, use wikipedia and everything. RIP LES PAUL
Butcher
#4
cmalmo4 les paul is a brand off of the gibson brand, i would suggest looking into that yo you dont just say "its a gibson" more like "its a gibson...les paul" gibson bought the idea off of les paul
Butcher
#5
whenever i have held a les paul it feels like a solid guitar, i dont own one but when i go to music shops i always try to find alefty so i can play it. i like how heavy it is though i cant imagine acctualy standing and playing it. its also one of the most iconic guitars of classic rock, maybe you could talk about that
It's always the last day of summer and I've been left out in the cold with no door to get back in
#6
It is a Gibson (brand) Les Paul (model). You know like a Ford (brand) Mustang (model). Or a Boeing (brand) 747 (model). Or a Dell (brand) Latitude (model).
#8
but to answer the original question yeah I own one it has a great feel if you like a thicker neck. If you get it set up right (like any guitar) plays like a dream. Plus Les Paul (RIP) was one of the biggest tanks ever, so there you go.
#9
Quote by brad_butcher
cmalmo4 les paul is a brand off of the gibson brand, i would suggest looking into that yo you dont just say "its a gibson" more like "its a gibson...les paul" gibson bought the idea off of les paul


Ahh, the smell of ignorance.

Les Paul's are not a brand, they're a series or line of guitars made by Gibson.

And Gibson did not buy the idea from Les Paul, he worked within Gibson as a consultant and co-designed the guitar model with Ted McCarty: the former president of Gibson.
PRS SE Custom 22
Peavey Vypyr 30


"When you look into the eyes of a man grown old,
wonder about the secrets gone untold.

When you look into the eyes of a young child,
marvel at the innocence running wild."
Last edited by Scopic at Sep 29, 2009,
#10
Quote by Scopic
Ahh, the smell of ignorance.

Les Paul's are not a brand, they're a series or line of guitars made by Gibson.

And Gibson did not buy the idea from Les Paul, he worked within Gibson as a consultant and co-designed the guitar model with Ted McCarty: The former President of Gibson.


We've already addressed that bro.
#11
Quote by cmalmo4
We've already addressed that bro.


I type slow, bro.
PRS SE Custom 22
Peavey Vypyr 30


"When you look into the eyes of a man grown old,
wonder about the secrets gone untold.

When you look into the eyes of a young child,
marvel at the innocence running wild."
#12
Les Paul to me means warm, fat, PAF tone. Pretty much represents classic rock at its best.
#13
Quote by Scopic
Ahh, the smell of ignorance.

Les Paul's are not a brand, they're a series or line of guitars made by Gibson.

And Gibson did not buy the idea from Les Paul, he worked within Gibson as a consultant and co-designed the guitar model with Ted McCarty: the former president of Gibson.


no one gives a ****

you get the gist
#14
In marketing terms, calling the Les Paul a "brand" isn't entirely incorrect (in a theoretical sense), however, it would be more properly referred to as a product line within Gibson's product mix. That said, the Les Paul certainly has an image apart from Gibson's other offerings. Regardless of people's personal opinions of the instument itself--I think it is fair to say that the Les Paul is iconic and has come to symbolize the brand much like the Stratocaster has for Fender. At the risk of making a sweeping generalization, I think if you asked a group of people what an electric guitar looks like, a good amount would conjure the image of the Les Paul (the actual term for this psychological phenomenon escapes me at the moment)--I think that says a lot for the image of the Les Paul.
#48 of the Fender Armada
#2 Omar Alfredo Rodriguez-Lopez fan club

Gibson SG Standard
Fender American Standard Telecaster
Fender Mustang
Epiphone Les Paul Custom
Last edited by Sunshine86 at Sep 29, 2009,
#15
I havnt played a gibson one, but i have heard of complaints about it not being a great bang for the buck. So I decided to myself, if I spent as much money on making a les paul shapped guitar as a gibson lespaul itself im sure the one I'd make would be better... but once agian I would make it to fit my play style and what not, so its biased... like a tube amp.
Reinhardt 18 Head
H&K Tubemiester 18 head
Blue 6505+ head

TC Electronics G Major
MXR phase 90, Pigtronix Echolution 2
Digitech Whammy (5th gen)

ETB Infinity x2
ETB Yoda

Frust
#16
Reasons I don't like Gibsons or Les Pauls
1. Mahogany
2. 24.75" Scale
3. Medium Frets
4. Finished Mahogany Set Necks

There comes a time in every guitar player's life when he/she realizes what works best for him. Spending $1000+ for a guitar you will not love is a waste depending on how much money you have. Gibson doesn't mean anything since they're not the most expensive or highest quality guitars in the world. They're just an old company who's been making guitars the same way they've been making them in the 50s. Their name is of historic value. Nothing more. They don't make the best guitars ever at all. They're good but not better than anything else in a similar pricerange.
#17
Quote by JELIFISH19
Reasons I don't like Gibsons or Les Pauls
1. Mahogany
2. 24.75" Scale
3. Medium Frets
4. Finished Mahogany Set Necks

There comes a time in every guitar player's life when he/she realizes what works best for him. Spending $1000+ for a guitar you will not love is a waste depending on how much money you have. Gibson doesn't mean anything since they're not the most expensive or highest quality guitars in the world. They're just an old company who's been making guitars the same way they've been making them in the 50s. Their name is of historic value. Nothing more. They don't make the best guitars ever at all. They're good but not better than anything else in a similar pricerange.


Just because you don't like them doesn't really mean you should **** on the entire company. You might find this surprising but a lot of people DO love Gibson's. Yeah they haven't changed the way they make their guitars but that's true of any company. Fender hasn't changed the basic design of it's two signature guitars and neither has Gibson. You sound like an ignorant asswipe.
#18
Quote by JELIFISH19
Gibson doesn't mean anything since they're not the most expensive or highest quality guitars in the world. They're just an old company who's been making guitars the same way they've been making them in the 50s. Their name is of historic value. Nothing more. They don't make the best guitars ever at all. They're good but not better than anything else in a similar pricerange.


This is what I like to call the "Rolex effect". Rolex cartainly doesn't make the most expensive watches (they're not even close, to be perfectly honest) and whether or not they're the best is highly, highly debatable (what is "the best" anyway?), however, in the eyes of the (often uneducated) public Rolex is the end all, be all of timepeices. It's all about brand perception and recognition. I think Gibson has utilized a similar strategy--the Gibson name is widely known and the price-point is such that it will get the attention of uniformed/less knowledgeable consumers and they will assume that, because it is more expensive, it is inherently better than less expensive guitars. Right or wrong, it is, without a doubt, an effective strategy.
#48 of the Fender Armada
#2 Omar Alfredo Rodriguez-Lopez fan club

Gibson SG Standard
Fender American Standard Telecaster
Fender Mustang
Epiphone Les Paul Custom
Last edited by Sunshine86 at Sep 29, 2009,
#19
Quote by midnight_toker
I am writing a brand analysis paper on Les Paul and I want to add some personality...so if you play or have played a Les Paul tell me what you thought about it. Also, what does the brand name itself mean to you?
Thanks!!!


I've got a Gibson Dark Fire, which is basically a Les Paul with a P90H humbucker, a Piezo pickup, and plenty of high tech.

For me, the guitar feels great. The neck is wider than normal and my fingers fit the frets perfectly. It's like the perfect fit for my hand. The finish is great, and the tone is also equally amazing, with the P90H in the neck giving some fatter single-coil tones that you can't get out of a regular dual humbucker Les Paul.

The guitar isn't all that heavy, but the tone is darker, so I do have to roll back on the bass knob just a tad (not that this is a problem.) It is well worth the price, in my opinion.

As for the brand name of Gibson, it happens to be a brand that I grew up around: both of my parents played everything from a Les Paul Custom to a Firebird to an ES-335. This makes me indirectly link Gibson to being one of the best guitar brands out there, whether this is actually true or not. With Gibson, you will tend to get a good guitar, one that might require a quick setup, but a good one nevertheless.
"Notes are expensive, spend them wisely." - B.B. King
#20
Quote by cmalmo4
Just because you don't like them doesn't really mean you should **** on the entire company. You might find this surprising but a lot of people DO love Gibson's. Yeah they haven't changed the way they make their guitars but that's true of any company. Fender hasn't changed the basic design of it's two signature guitars and neither has Gibson. You sound like an ignorant asswipe.

Looks like someone can't read properly. I didn't **** on Gibson in any way. I stated why I don't like them (isn't that the point of this thread). Then I said good but not better than anything else in a similar price range (I would say that about all guitar companies except if there's a clear quality distinction). If I'm so ignorant, Gibson would be the only company to make high-end guitars which is obviously not the case. Read the post below yours about the Rolex effect. It's the exact same thing. Your making yourself look like the "uneducated public" by holding them in such high regards without good reason.