Page 1 of 3
#1
...have such an unusually high bridge? I mean, just why?
I know how the high bridge was originally a mistake and all that stuff, I just want to know why gibson has never corrected or made a model with a body and bridge that is straight with the neck.
I mean, a hardtail les paul would be pretty cool....
/rant
Quote by punk_rules_1997

Hi, I am looking for an amp setting close to the sound of bands like Black Veil Brides.


Quote by Eppicurt

Set everything to 12 o'clock.

Go from there.

lol

Jackson WRMG
Peavey Valveking 112
Pod HD300

Will buy guitars & guitar parts
PM me for info
#3
i'm referring to the height of the bridge and the way the neck is kind of slanted back into the body, which i find fairly uncomfortable
Quote by punk_rules_1997

Hi, I am looking for an amp setting close to the sound of bands like Black Veil Brides.


Quote by Eppicurt

Set everything to 12 o'clock.

Go from there.

lol

Jackson WRMG
Peavey Valveking 112
Pod HD300

Will buy guitars & guitar parts
PM me for info
#4
I personally find it beneficial. I guess they found out some people like it and decided to keep it. I didnt know it was a mistake though lol
MY METALZ YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Quote by angusfan16
Okay UG where's my refund and free xbox. I need It for my 80 yr old grandma. She needs a new flower pot
#5
Les Pauls are generally extremely overrated ... there's other guitars out there that will do what you want with lower bridges.
Axe FX 2
Matrix GT1000FX
Mesa 4x12
Behringer FCB1010
#6
The rest of us think it's fine. They don't need to "fix" it any more than they need to fix their scale length. It's part of the Les Paul construction, and making it differently would not be an improvement . You can dislike it, but don't call it a mistake or a problem.
#7
Don't know which Les Paul you own. I love mine. It has screws to tighten down the bridge. Out of all my guitars its my favorite to play. It has the best action too.
Jackson RR3 Rhoads
Gibson Les Paul Studio
Ibanez RG1550M
Kramer Striker 211

Marshall MA100C
Boss GT-10 Guitar Multi Effects
#8
Quote by Roc8995
The rest of us think it's fine. They don't need to "fix" it any more than they need to fix their scale length. It's part of the Les Paul construction, and making it differently would not be an improvement . You can dislike it, but don't call it a mistake or a problem.


I didn't call it a mistake in a degrading manner, lol I meant that the original idea of the bridge and it's orientation regarding height was a mistake, but I guess it does work for some people lol
Quote by punk_rules_1997

Hi, I am looking for an amp setting close to the sound of bands like Black Veil Brides.


Quote by Eppicurt

Set everything to 12 o'clock.

Go from there.

lol

Jackson WRMG
Peavey Valveking 112
Pod HD300

Will buy guitars & guitar parts
PM me for info
#9
if your talking in relation to other stop tail gibsons like an explorer or an SG.....its because les pauls have a carved top that raises it a bit.....so.....ya
Quote by kangaxxter
The only real answer to the SG vs Les Paul debate is to get a Flying V and laugh at all the suckers who don't have one.


Quote by Blompcube

if you embrace inaccurate intonation it can be quite arousing.


I <3 TWEED
#10
Quote by Roc8995
They don't need to "fix" it any more than they need to fix their scale length.


They do need to fix their scale length. Thats the reason why I'm such a big fender fan..............jk...but seriously, thats the reason why I'm a fender fan.

TS, maybe others like it? Kinda like vintage tints on maple necks. Makes it look old which is what the public wants.
Quote by FEngHLyan

She will join the prom.

She insists to wear this lights.

I don't think so.

How can I persuade her?
#11
It's because the neck is set at an angle. The bridge has to be high enough that the strings will break at a reasonable angle so they will be parallel with the fretboard. Otherwise they would be 2 inches away at the 22nd fret and digging into the fretwire at the 1st fret.
#12
as long as the action is low i don't see the problem actually.

it's only a mistake insofar as the neck angle makes it easier to stress and break the headstock off...

but they did try to fix that and everyone was like booooo.
Prs se Holcomb is the answer
#13
Quote by La Qotsa
Les Pauls are generally extremely overrated ... there's other guitars out there that will do what you want with lower bridges.



I didnt know it was a "slag off Les Pauls thread". They are some of the most respected guitars!
MY METALZ YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Quote by angusfan16
Okay UG where's my refund and free xbox. I need It for my 80 yr old grandma. She needs a new flower pot
#14
Many Gibson Les Paul purists get upset in a bunch when Gibson makes changes to their standard line up because they want the Les Paul their grandpa played. If they changed the bridge to a flush Fender style bridge and had no neck angle, many people would be upset.

You have to figure, what they're doing is selling, so why change it?
#15
Here's why the neck is angled back so far:

The TOM design in and of itself requires a neck angle of I believe 3* unless it's recessed into the body. the carved top raises the string height enough to require a few more degrees of neck angle.
Current Gear:
LTD MH-400
PRS SE Custom 24 (Suhr SSH+/SSV)
Ibanez RG3120 Prestige (Dimarzio Titans)
Squier Vintage Modified 70s Jazz V
Audient iD22 interface
Peavey Revalver 4, UAD Friedman BE100/DS40
Adam S3A monitors
Quote by Anonden
You CAN play anything with anything....but some guitars sound right for some things, and not for others. Single coils sound retarded for metal, though those who are apeshit about harpsichord probably beg to differ.
#16
Quote by leony03
I didnt know it was a "slag off Les Pauls thread". They are some of the most respected guitars!


Most respected = ... best advertised?

Anyway, most newborn Gibson "purists" are the type of people have never touched another kind of guitar in their life, they just seem to assume they'll immediately love it because one of them was designed by some guy called Les Paul or something.
Axe FX 2
Matrix GT1000FX
Mesa 4x12
Behringer FCB1010
#17
Quote by La Qotsa
Most respected = ... best advertised?

Anyway, most newborn Gibson "purists" are the type of people have never touched another kind of guitar in their life, they just seem to assume they'll immediately love it because one of them was designed by some guy called Les Paul or something.

Whether you like the guitar or not, it is undeniably a popular and well-regarded instrument, and your insulting of it, and the people who enjoy them, with no evidence whatsoever, is childish and makes you look like a complete idiot.

You're not contributing anything to this thread. Leave.
#18
i like high bridges cause i really like to dig into the strings and play hard and i cant do it as much on my telecaster. i save that one for jazz playing.
Egnater Tweaker 40
Yamaha s412
Vox AC4TV
Fender Blues Jr. VIII

Fender MIM Jazzmaster
Fender MIM Telecaster
Ibanez GAX70
Ibanez VBT700
Epiphone Les Paul jr.
Gibson Les Paul 60's Tribute

Various Effects
#19
Quote by voltafan485
i like high bridges cause i really like to dig into the strings and play hard and i cant do it as much on my telecaster. i save that one for jazz playing.


that only has to do with how your action is set up and nothing to do with your bridge.
Prs se Holcomb is the answer
#20
i look at it like this action is for fretting hand and bridge is for picking hand. but its all purely opinion and based on feel. theres no one formula to guitar playing/setup/sound/or whatever else.
Egnater Tweaker 40
Yamaha s412
Vox AC4TV
Fender Blues Jr. VIII

Fender MIM Jazzmaster
Fender MIM Telecaster
Ibanez GAX70
Ibanez VBT700
Epiphone Les Paul jr.
Gibson Les Paul 60's Tribute

Various Effects
#21
So you can stick two huge covered humbuckers in there and still have room to fingerpick.
#22
Quote by jpnyc
So you can stick two huge covered humbuckers in there and still have room to fingerpick.
Good answer!
#23
Quote by AcousticMirror
that only has to do with how your action is set up and nothing to do with your bridge.

i think he might've been referring to the clearance of the strings from the body rather than action.

when you think about it, the les paul bridge is perfectly normal for any '50s arch-topped guitar, and if anything is a bit lower than most of the guitars that were available at that time. that's just how a guitar was, back then.
I like analogue Solid State amps that make no effort to be "tube-like", and I'm proud of it...

...A little too proud, to be honest.
#24
Quote by La Qotsa
Les Pauls are generally extremely overrated ... there's other guitars out there that will do what you want with lower bridges.

They're most definitely not. Everyone who I know who has said that has eaten their words after they played mine. It seems people say that because they haven't played one for a decent length of time.

But, on topic...

Gibson are not good at correcting their flaws. They make some amazing guitars, hence their reputation as one of the best guitar companies out there. But, the Les Paul and other Gibsons have always had the same flaws, but Gibson has never fixed them. I think it's because the purists will be put off but changes. I mean, the Les Paul has hardly changed since it was first introduced. They need to sort the headstock angle. It's very weak and stronger after it's been broken. The massive block of wood blocking the upper frets makes it hard to play up there. Apart from that, I think it's a perfect guitar.
#25
i generally find that anoying as well. bridges should not have to be that high. i also dont like how the poles are sooo small they look like they are going to snap off. arent they supposed to transfer all the vibration to the body?

well i see a longer distance and less material to transfer vibration. ive even seen some SGs at GC that the pole peices and bridge were slanted forward as if the guy in the factory fell asleep when he was drilling the holes and did it cooked.

for that reason i dont really like gibsons. Now thier custom shops and guitars over 2000 are nice, but again, for 2000 + there are guitar built better than any gibson - like a hamer for example.

Gibsons can sound good and are not overrated for thier sound, but for quality and price i find them to be one of the worst. fender is not bad but still bad. again, the same price as a custom shop strat i would rather have 10 other brands that make a guitar like that.

...like suhr
#26
Design flaw?, in this case no. Strings high on the body is the price you pay for a carved or archtop guitar.

The Gibson scale (though not my favorite) has a lot of influence on the tone of their guitars. I love the fat sound of a LP with PAF pickups but for my hands I find other designs much more comfortable to play.

If there is a flaw it would be the severe neck angle but then again I can't think of any major guitar style that doesn't have a flaw or two. My personal favorite, the strat, has the vol control right below the strings where you can't help but hit it. So I alway cut the control stem down and fashion my own low profile knobs for them. Just another case of no design is perfect for everybody.
t
I'm the only player to be sponsered by 7 guitar companies not to use their products.
#27
Quote by BlackbirdPie
Design flaw?, in this case no. Strings high on the body is the price you pay for a carved or archtop guitar.

The Gibson scale (though not my favorite) has a lot of influence on the tone of their guitars. I love the fat sound of a LP with PAF pickups but for my hands I find other designs much more comfortable to play.

If there is a flaw it would be the severe neck angle but then again I can't think of any major guitar style that doesn't have a flaw or two. My personal favorite, the strat, has the vol control right below the strings where you can't help but hit it. So I alway cut the control stem down and fashion my own low profile knobs for them. Just another case of no design is perfect for everybody.
t

Of course no design is perfect, they're mass produced and everyone has a different preference. You could have a guitar custom build to perfection, and someone else would find a "design flaw".
#28
Quote by Roc8995
Whether you like the guitar or not, it is undeniably a popular and well-regarded instrument, and your insulting of it, and the people who enjoy them, with no evidence whatsoever, is childish and makes you look like a complete idiot.

You're not contributing anything to this thread. Leave.


No need to get so defensive, I didn't even "bash" your beloved favourite guitar ... I simply said to OP that there are more guitars out there that may be more suited to him, LPs or Gibsons are simply not the only guitars out there or the be all and end all. Same way as everybody sucks Slashs dick and he isn't the only "good" guitarist out there ...

My point here is: open your eyes to other stuff.
Axe FX 2
Matrix GT1000FX
Mesa 4x12
Behringer FCB1010
#29
Quote by La Qotsa
Les Pauls are generally extremely overrated ... there's other guitars out there that will do what you want with lower bridges.


+1. My guitar teacher told me a billion times how it was nothing major to own one before Slash, compared to other guitars by then. I understand the wood is more expensive, but I dont see why they cost 50% more than another guitar in the same category, made by other brand.
#30
Quote by 1990EAM
+1. My guitar teacher told me a billion times how it was nothing major to own one before Slash, compared to other guitars by then. I understand the wood is more expensive, but I dont see why they cost 50% more than another guitar in the same category, made by other brand.

There have been probably several hundred Les Paul models on the market.
Which one you say costs 50% more than another guitar in the same category?
BTW, please define that "same category".
#31
Here we go again, the minute Gibson is mentioned the haters or people driven by jealousy start spouting off and most know shit!
OP to your original question the 'error' you are confusing the current design with was the net set angle in 1952 was too shallow and Les Pauls trapeze bridge/tailpiece was thru some miscommunications, shipped with the strings wrapped under the bridge. This wqs basically unplayable and when the strings were wrapped over the top the action was then too high. Gibsons answer was the McCarty stop bar tailpiece and an increase in the net set angle to allow for the height of the bridge while maintaining relatively low action on an arched top guitar.
The only guitars with zero neck angles are slab body styles.
The arch top is a carry over from the hollow body electrics BTW and was a distinction between Gibson's offering and the upstart Fender.
There's tons of real books on the history but I guess it just easier to repaet bad information some dork spouts on the web rather than do research.

And to the Q raised about the bridge transferring vibrations, again NO (read up on why solid bodies were designed in the first place)! The design goal of the guitar is to terminate the vibrations at the strings end points (bridge and nut) vibrations being passed on reduce sustain. In the words of Les Pau himself ' I quickly figured out that if only the strings were moving you got more sustain'. The only part of an LP that you can really feel the vibrations on are the neck/headstock.
Moving on.....
#32
Quote by JesusCrisp
There have been probably several hundred Les Paul models on the market.
Which one you say costs 50% more than another guitar in the same category?
BTW, please define that "same category".


Well for example, a plain Usa Strat is $1000, while the $1000 Gibson's guitar (is it the Studio?) isnt in the same level, for what I've read
#33
Gibson is dumb, and they use illegal wood, and they are too expensive, and they are overrated, and Agiles are better, and they have bad quality control, and they buy endorsements, and they are gay.

Did I cover everything?
#34
Quote by 1990EAM
Well for example, a plain Usa Strat is $1000, while the $1000 Gibson's guitar (is it the Studio?) isnt in the same level, for what I've read

*Define level
**So you're basing this on guesswork and other peoples' opinions? Nice work...

Please don't compare chalk and cheese and then complain that good cheese costs more than good chalk. Think about what you're saying and come back with a measured argument.

^ Also you forgot to mention that slash sucks and gibsons don't come with coil taps so schecters are clearly better...
Last edited by ProgFolk12 at Sep 25, 2011,
#35
Quote by 1990EAM
Well for example, a plain Usa Strat is $1000, while the $1000 Gibson's guitar (is it the Studio?) isnt in the same level, for what I've read

I'm trying to understand what you mean but this. Are you saying the US strat is better than a studio?

I can assure you that my $850 Gibson LP 60s tribute is as good an any American standard strat I've touched in both craftsmanship and materials.

Now whether you want to pay more for a gloss finish and binding is up to you, but the basic functionality of the guitar is quite acceptable.
#37
Quote by La Qotsa
Most respected = ... best advertised?

Anyway, most newborn Gibson "purists" are the type of people have never touched another kind of guitar in their life, they just seem to assume they'll immediately love it because one of them was designed by some guy called Les Paul or something.


If I had a nickel for everytime I've met a person like that...
Quote by punk_rules_1997

Hi, I am looking for an amp setting close to the sound of bands like Black Veil Brides.


Quote by Eppicurt

Set everything to 12 o'clock.

Go from there.

lol

Jackson WRMG
Peavey Valveking 112
Pod HD300

Will buy guitars & guitar parts
PM me for info
#38
The bridge isn't that high, I've got the action on mine high enough to bend easily but low enough to feel awesome. My Les Paul is awesome, so others can say what they like cus I know what I think of it.

Haters gonna hate/
'And after a while, you can work on points for style.
Like the club tie, and the firm handshake,
A certain look in the eye and an easy smile.'

'You have to be trusted by the people that you lie to,
So that when they turn their backs on you,
You'll get the chance to put the knife in.'
#39
Quote by ProgFolk12
*Define level
**So you're basing this on guesswork and other peoples' opinions? Nice work...

Please don't compare chalk and cheese and then complain that good cheese costs more than good chalk. Think about what you're saying and come back with a measured argument.

^ Also you forgot to mention that slash sucks and gibsons don't come with coil taps so schecters are clearly better...


I'm not a Gibson hater or a Fender fanboy so I dont know why you made that last comment.

Do I need to define level even more? It's common sense to me. Level = build quality, finish, wood quality, pickups, tuners, etc. etc.

And I'm not basing anything on anything. I clearly stated that it was something that I read around here, if you can read properly.

Quote by W4RP1G
I'm trying to understand what you mean but this. Are you saying the US strat is better than a studio?


Hmm, no. More like the $1k Strat has overall better build quality and finish than the Gibson in the same price range. But like I tried to state, it's just something that I read. I dont have so much money like to own both nor have I lived a life to tell if one's a keeper and the other falls apart 5 years from bought.
Last edited by 1990EAM at Sep 25, 2011,
#40
Quote by kandex
...have such an unusually high bridge? I mean, just why?
I know how the high bridge was originally a mistake and all that stuff, I just want to know why gibson has never corrected or made a model with a body and bridge that is straight with the neck.
I mean, a hardtail les paul would be pretty cool....
/rant

Most of the Gibson guitars (standard or limited edition) tend to have the most factory defects of all guitars on the market (from my personal experience). If it's the action issue, you can get it fixed with a simple setup adjustment, but if it's something like a bridge defects, then it's a factory issue. But this is all just me.
Page 1 of 3