Page 2 of 2
#41
Quote by Prophet of Page
Sure, I can understand you find the '50s neck more comfortable, that's perfectly understandable, we all have preferences. It's the issue of your hands cramping up if you were to play an average Strat that's bothering me.

Also, T00DEEPBLUE, you certainly have sizeable hands, but having met Gilbert (and Vai, for that matter), I don't think you have bigger hands than him (or Vai, for that matter).

Again, you're absolutely entitled to your preferences for bigger necks, but I don't think the reasoning that somebody big hands can't find a slim neck comfortable is wrong.

I didn't say big hands can't find a slim neck comfortable.

I said *I* can't.

Huge difference.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Feel free to express yours so I can make an informed judgement about how stupid you are.
#42
Quote by Prophet of Page
I agree with this, certainly I would have expected a '60s neck profile, but I think there's something fundementally wrong about the idea of a Les Paul "Shred." I mean, the Les Paul is pretty much the antithesis of everything your typical "shred" guitar is, I'm not sure it's the right platform to build a "shred" guitar from.

Les Pauls are on the heavier end of the guitar spectrum, most "shred" guitars are lightweight. Les Pauls are singlecut with an obtrusive heel and a shallow cutaway, most "shred" guitars are doublecut, with slim or rounded heels and deep cutaways. Les Pauls are normally fixed bridge, most "shred" guitars have floating double-locking tremolos. Les Pauls are 24.75" scale, most "shred" guitars are 25.5".

Then there are the other differences. Set neck vs bolt-on construction, squarer body design vs a highly contoured design, etc. Really the only things that is typically "shred" about the Les Paul is the pickup configuration.


I think zak wylde might want a word with you...
SMILE!
#43
Alright, once again thanks.
Just quickly, because i've realized shredding on an LP isn't the best idea and shred isn't going to be the main genre of music I play, would it be a good idea to get a Gibson Les paul Studio 60's Tribute and install a Stetsbar on it. I've heard good things, and also, seen people do divebombs on it so.....
Is it stable? Is it better as a vibrato and difficult to use as a whammy? Looks great in gold... mmm
(btw, cos my main genre will not be shred, the p90's are not a problem- in fact, i love the tone)
#44
Quote by bubb_tubbs
I didn't say big hands can't find a slim neck comfortable.

I said *I* can't.

Huge difference.


I know you didn't. I didn't say that you did, I thought T00DEEPBLUE did.

I'm still a little concerned about your hand cramping on an average sized neck. Maybe you wouldn't be as comfortable as on your preferred '50s necks, and I do understand that some people get hand cramps when they try playing on a Wizard profile, but anything that's smaller than a '50s neck? That seems unusual to me.

Also, I'm not arguing that you can't shred on a Les Paul. I'm just saying that when you consider the typical "shred" guitar, usually a lightweight basswood or alder body with with two deep cutaways and body contouring, 25.5" scale length, bolt-on construction with a contoured or slimmed heel, a wide, slim and flat maple neck and a maple or rosewood fretboard and big frets, a floating double-locking tremolo, HH/HSS/HSH pickup configuration and so on, the Les Paul isn't really the ideal platform from which to build a guitar aimed at the "shredder" market.

I'm not saying you can't shred on a Les Paul, or that you can't be a shredder and have preferences that differ from what I've posted above, just that I don't really see how a Les Paul Shred fits into the "shredder" market. An SG Shred would have made much more sense to me.
My name is Tom, feel free to use it.
Page 2 of 2