#1
Hi, everyone. I own an Epiphone Tony Iommi G-400 and I have noticed a lot of people like to say that Les Pauls are better than SGs. Now, before I go on, I would like to go ahead and say that I'm not writing this thread to say SGs are better, nor am I writing it to say that Les Pauls are better. I am just trying to point out why SGs aren't necessarily better than Les Pauls and vice versa.
I know there's a lot of Les Paul fans out there that swear to only use Les Pauls, which is perfectly fine. I also know that probably 90% of them are going to flame me for this article (haha). But to all of those people, just remember that there have been famous SG players and famous Les Paul players. They're both good guitars.
I guess I'll start with Les Pauls. Les Pauls are great guitars. Many people use Les Pauls because they sound thick and usually have greater sustain than any other common type of guitar, generally speaking. I will go ahead and say that in my own opinion, Les Pauls probably win in the competition of sound because of their sustain.
The greatest strength of the Les Paul also proves to be its greatest weakness. The high amount of wood required to make a good Les Paul also means that it is large and rather uncomfortable. In addition, all the added weight can make a player become fatigued. It's not too bad for a couple of hours, but if you're going to practice with a band for a whole day (and maybe all night for some people, haha), it becomes very exhausting. All that extra weight can also make it easy to accidentally mess up when sweep picking or doing anything that requires a lot of technical precision. Also, the switch is usually located in a bad spot. Above the neck tends to be a poor place to put a switch. Players may find it possible to accidentally flip the switch in the middle of a show. Obviously this could be a huge problem, especially if you set your other pickup is set to 0 volume. I'm not saying that Les Pauls are unusable or anything of that sort because many people use the Les Paul anyway, and many people have been successful with that type of guitar. In fact, I wouldn't mind having one myself.
It's SG counterpart, on the other hand, is almost the opposite. It does not sustain nearly as long (although any overdriven or distorted guitar will still sustain for a very long time), but it is, overall, most comfortable (in many people's opinions). The switch is in a better spot, the guitar weighs less, and it's smaller.
To sum everything up, Les Pauls and SGs are very similar. The main differences are that Les Pauls sustain longer but are more uncomfortable, and SGs don't sustain as long but are more comfortable (to most people). Don't get me wrong, they're BOTH GREAT GUITARS! I really like both. I plan on having a couple of each one day.
As a last note, consider this: After coming to the conclusion that Les Pauls sustain better but are more uncomfortable, maybe record with a Les Paul and play more live shows with the SGs?
In the end, it all comes down to the player and what he or she prefers. They're both great choices, and you couldn't go wrong with either one of them. I hope I've helped to settle the SG/Les Paul debate.
Happy Shredding everyone!
#2
To sum that wall of text:

Some people like SGs, some like Les Pauls

As if you could settle an argument on personal preference
Gibson 58 RI VOS Custombuckers
Mesa Lonestar Special 2x12
#3
that was absolutely pointless
Quote by evening_crow
As far as i know the only liquor that should not be stored after opened is wine, and even then it's mainly the french one. American wine usually has conservatives in it to stop this.
#6
Quote by htsktim91989
that was absolutely pointless


shush, let him think hes solved it
Gibson 58 RI VOS Custombuckers
Mesa Lonestar Special 2x12
#7
There are always assholes....

anyways, I enjoyed reading it to know that I'm not alone on how I feel about on the SG/LP debate. good read, well done.
LICKY, LICKY LOLLIPOP


Quote by soundjam
Which is why you eat funions. All the deliciousness of fried onions without disgusting lukewarm onion snake.
#8
I think the switch on the Les Paul is placed well. I've never played an SG myself, but on like Strat style guitars, I hit the switch all the friggin time if I'm not paying attention.
Breaking stereotypes by playing indie on a metal guitar.

Current Gear
- Epiphone Les Paul Standard (Plus Top)
- Crappy Strat Copy (Redecorated, looks snazzy)
- Ibanez Acoustic/Electric Guitar
- Ibanez RG1570 Mirage Blue
- Peavey Vypyr 30 Watt
#9
I didn't know there as an "SG/LP debate."
Yes, I know everything. No, I can't play worth a damn.
A child is trafficked and sold for sex slavery every 30 seconds. Support Love146.
#10
They are guitars. They both have pickups and they both have strings. They both produce sounds through an amplifier if plugged in. They both have been played by legends and both have earned their popularity by being fantastic gutars.

There should be no debate. I love my SG, and I'm sure if I owned a LP, I would love that too.

Carry on.
Quote by Dunning~Kruger
Yes I was rude, and I was aggressive and I was offending a large group of people. But I was civlized about it.

Taylor 414CE
#11
I thought SG and Les Pauls were basically the same thing. I read somewhere that back in the fifties gibson wanted to change the shape of the les paul to what we now recognize as the SG. But Lester polfson didnt like it so Gibson made to separate guitars. right?
#12
Quote by TrevorJH
I thought SG and Les Pauls were basically the same thing. I read somewhere that back in the fifties gibson wanted to change the shape of the les paul to what we now recognize as the SG. But Lester polfson didnt like it so Gibson made to separate guitars. right?


True, but LP's ARE HEAVY. SG's are LIGHT
NT

BE QUICK OR BE DEAD SON
#14
Quote by NosralTserrof
SG's are LIGHT


The body is light. Neck is a rock, dives like crazy.
Quote by Dunning~Kruger
Yes I was rude, and I was aggressive and I was offending a large group of people. But I was civlized about it.

Taylor 414CE
#15
Quote by NosralTserrof
True, but LP's ARE HEAVY. SG's are LIGHT


not true, ive played iommi sg, heavier than my les paul standard
Eh.
#16
Quote by TrevorJH
I thought SG and Les Pauls were basically the same thing. I read somewhere that back in the fifties gibson wanted to change the shape of the les paul to what we now recognize as the SG. But Lester polfson didnt like it so Gibson made to separate guitars. right?



The SG debuted in 1961 as the "newly designed Les Paul. The original Les Paul was discontinued then for most of the 60's till the rediscovery of them by blues/rock players made them popular.
Moving on.....
#17
^ Check your history chief.

See what kinda crap these threads dredge up?
Quote by Marty Friedman
Because I bend in such an unorthodox fashion; the notes kinda slide up and slide down...
#21
TLDR, but I was unaware there was even a "debate" between Les Pauls and SG's. Apples and Oranges if you ask me. Thread fail.
#22
Well it's settled at least. good thing too. It was driving me crazy. My next door neighbor whose loves AC/DC and is like 16 was all like SG's are the best man! Ya! and I was like no way Slash uses Les Pauls and their awesome man!
and he was like nu uh
and I was like uh huh
and he was like nu uh
and I was like uh huh
and he was like nu uh
and I was like uh huh
and he was like nu uh
and I was like uh huh
and he was like nu uh
and I was like uh huh
and he was like nu uh
and I was like uh huh
and he was like nu uh
and I was like uh huh
and he was like nu uh
and I was like uh huh
and he was like nu uh
and I was like uh huh
and he was like nu uh
and I was like uh huh
and he was like nu uh
and I was like uh huh
and he was like nu uh
and I was like uh huh
Prs se Holcomb is the answer
#23
Quote by Sykness

*Describes Les Paul using mostly opinions in a large block of text*

It's SG counterpart, on the other hand, is almost the opposite...

*Describes SG in a really small paragraph*


I hate to come off as an ass, but this was the most pointless thing I've ever read. You went through trying to detail everything about the guitars (while making the entire thing you wrote very lopsided towards Les Pauls) using a lot of opinions, then sum up the entire article saying...

Quote by Sykness
...Les Pauls and SGs are very similar...


Then what was the point of the article we all just read? Yes, both guitars are just fine in their own rights. If they weren't, Gibson wouldn't have gone through the trouble of producing and marketing either guitar. You also pointed out the differences in sustain and sound, then wrapped it up saying they're very similar. In that exact frame of text, you could've just as well argued that a H-H RG is very similar to a H-H Les Paul.

------------

If you wanted to write an accurate summary comparing both of these guitars with the "facts" you're using instead of using popular belief you would need to take a lot more science-based approach. I would start off with a gutted SG and a loaded Les Paul, play a few riffs each focusing on the bass/mid/treble frequencies the guitar makes in both the bridge and neck position. Then I would transplant everything from the Les Paul (bridge, electronics, tuners) over to the SG and play the exact same stuff you played on the Les Paul.

Obviously that method is completely ridiculous and nobody would do it, so the best you could do is find a Les Paul and SG identically equipped. Once again I apologize for being an ass... but c'mon
Endorsed by Dean Guitars 07-10
2003 Gibson Flying V w/ Moon Inlay
2006 Fender All-American Partscaster
SVK ELP-C500 Custom

1964 Fender Vibro Champ
1989 Peavey VTM60

[thread="1166208"]Gibsons Historic Designs[/thread]
Last edited by Flux'D at Jun 10, 2010,
#24
SG's make you look 13 years old.
Carvin V3 - Matamp 4x12 - VHT Valvulator - Maxon OD808 - Visual Volume Pedal

EH Cathedral - Ibanez DE7
#25
Quote by Iveness92
SG's make you look 13 years old.


You should release your tabs. Would give me a great reason to play my SG then.
Quote by Dunning~Kruger
Yes I was rude, and I was aggressive and I was offending a large group of people. But I was civlized about it.

Taylor 414CE