Page 1 of 4
#1
There are a lot of guitars out there that I wouldn't buy because they are not intended for my genre of preference but I don't have real strong feelings about it.
How come so many haters?
I think a lot of people jump on the "quality ain't what it used to be" bandwagon but aren't even old enough to know what the quality used to be.
If you have true personal experiences I would like to know.
Thanks.
#2
I personally dislike Les Pauls and most Gibsons but I don't "hate" them...

Anyone who takes the time to "hate" a guitar and people who play it needs to take a look at their priorities.
Survivor of the St. John's Lockdown
Quote by SG thrasher

The thread-starter is a legend.
Seriously, who thinks "Shit, i'm gonna die, BRB, Ima' tell UG."?

Quote by The_Paranoia

Congratz man, you are a true, American Hero.
Go Schneiderman!

Gun Facts: Educate Yourself
#4
I am definitely not a fan of the neck, at all. But they do garner a great muddy blues sound.
OBEY THE MIGHTY SHITKICKER
#5
Well, heres what I find usually...

People will say something dumb like "Oh...I dont like them cause everyone has them.."

But, here is what I do know about the negatives of a Les Paul

1. They are HEAVY. To some players it could be good, but not me.
2. One of my friends said he had to deal with horrible customer service when the jack broke out of the box.
3. They are rather expensive. And for the guitarist on a budget like me, it just wont cut it to buy a 2,000 guitar. Yes, it may be worth it but, I'd rather try out my options and try more guitars. For example, I found this great ESP that has amazing reviews and plays amazing. As much as I hate to use the words "Knock-off" it's great for the price and the quality your getting. It ever has a LP shape.

http://www.musiciansfriend.com/product/ESP-LTD-EC400VF?sku=512884&src=3WFRWXX&CAWELAID=60351359
#6
for some reason i just can't stand how they feel/play...same with every jackson i've ever laid hands on.
#7
I dislike LPs. I don't like the feel, the shape, the tone...anything. Can't stand to play them. Also, the Gibson versions are so expensive...I haven't got a grand and more to spend on a guitar. Why the hell are they that expensive?
#9
i have a gibson les paul studio, and i love it, although its taken a back seat since my fender came to town
#10
I don't really like the feel of them or the upper fret access (maybe because I am so used to my SG) but they don't feel right for me. However no all are bad but the only one liked was the Gibson LP Goddess
Quote by Zangetsu 101
Girl (Ned/chav) annoying me on the bus.

Me "Have you ever bled out your arse-hole?"

Her: Facial expression was priceless - "What??! Noo!"

Me: "Well if you want to keep it that way, **** off."

She then turned away and whimpered.
#11
Lots of reasons, for me.

1. Uncomfortable - Because one is very heavy with an uncomfortable body that doesn't have any comfort contouring; pain results.

2. Neck - It's very fat, very wide, very hard to play if you have smaller hands...

3. Gibson quality + price - For what you pay, it's not that great a guitar. I mean sure, it's nice, but so is a USA Fender - and having A/B'd a USA Standard Strat and a Standard LP, there's pretty much nothing to choose between them ultimately. But, the Gibson is £500+ more!

4. Copies - As Dave_mc and likely countless others have proved, you can spend £500 on a Japanese LP Copy such as an Edwards, and get if not an equal but superior guitar for under half the price, proving how inflated the Gibsons are...
The Laney Thread are big and clever. No exceptions.
#12
Ive Got an epiphone les paul and i have to say i love it. Yeah, its heavy, but you get used to it, and i decided to pick up My fender strat a few days ago and it felt light as a feather
#13
Quote by MrCarrot
Lots of reasons, for me.

1. Uncomfortable - Because one is very heavy with an uncomfortable body that doesn't have any comfort contouring; pain results.

2. Neck - It's very fat, very wide, very hard to play if you have smaller hands...

3. Gibson quality + price - For what you pay, it's not that great a guitar. I mean sure, it's nice, but so is a USA Fender - and having A/B'd a USA Standard Strat and a Standard LP, there's pretty much nothing to choose between them ultimately. But, the Gibson is £500+ more!

4. Copies - As Dave_mc and likely countless others have proved, you can spend £500 on a Japanese LP Copy such as an Edwards, and get if not an equal but superior guitar for under half the price, proving how inflated the Gibsons are...


Well there is that thick poly finish on the strat. . .
Gibson SG Standard
Fender 52 RI Telecaster
'77 Deluxe Reverb
Sunface w/ SunDial
MXR Carbon Copy
Crybaby



Quote by Sid McCall
Epic win. He speaks the truth, boys and girls.



Founder of the Neutral Milk Hotel club PM to join~
#15
Are the new ones of lesser quality? When did Gibson get such a negative rep? I've had mine since 95 and it is still as great as the day it was bought. I have had no problems at all. Did something change in the building process to make them not as good.
It is heavy. It does have a thick neck. But these are things that are just preference.
#16
i think they are great guitars i tried my stepdads les paul studio (gloss black with gold hardware, looks soo nice) but i dont like the weight of it.

the neck is nice although i still prefer the fender telecaster (god of guitars LOL) and my newly purchased Ibanez S (i hated them until i tried this beast out)
#17
I agree with MrCarrot on all points. That said, I think LPs are fantastic guitars, it's more the company I don't like. I play a Tele simply because I prefer the longer scale, the singlecoils and the light weight (especially since I suffer from back problems!). I'd still happily play a Les Paul and indeed often prefer them for studio work.

But pay money for one? No way. I've got major issues with their build quality - sure they feel like a pro guitar, but the prices are unacceptable considering many companies build guitars of equal quality for around half the price! I've played a few Jap copies that are nearly as good as a Standard for about a third of the cost - yet the only things I can find to 'justify' Gibson's elevated prices are the nitro finish, the pickups - which aren't that great anyway- and the name on the headstock.

I think it's really the ethics of the company that bug me, a lot of manufacturers manage t make healthy profits woithout selling their soul in the process, but the big 'G' just can't seem to manage....
#18
^ +1, a Lot.

Also, I absolutely love your guitar!

And again, the nitro doesn't make a terribly large difference. The difference in sustain between two identical guitars, one with nitro and the other Poly, is minimal. And to say that is a plus point for the LP, is still outweighed by the insane price. I mean, the Fender HW1s have a thin Nitro finish and they're like £450.
The Laney Thread are big and clever. No exceptions.
#19
Cheers, so do I fortunately! Yeah, nitro finishes are more of a cosmetic thing lately - since they 'relic' better over time I guess. It still doesn't justify the enormously inflated prices though.

Shame really, since I'm itching to get a Flying V...
#20
I have a couple and have had a bunch. The newer ones are different but I have yet to come across one that sounds bad - unless it was abused by someone who couldn't afford to buy it at a megastore or had not been setup.
#21
I love the Telecaster and the Startocaster (own them both) but that does not take away from my appreciation of the fine quality of the Paul.
It just looks and feels more luxurious than the workman like Fenders that I own. I guess I was just wondering why so many people have to hate them and trash them just because they are not for them. But I have not played a new one so my experience is limited to the one I have. They sure generate strong feelings one way or the other.
#22
Most people around my neck of the woods dislike Gibsons for MANY reasons. Mainly, because they aren't what they used to be. Yes, I'm only 15, but I live in Kentucky. I've seen my share of old guitars. If you look at a Gibson Les Paul made BEFORE 1970, then it's a masterpiece. 1970 and after, it's just crap. Gibson has been riding on their name for over thirty years. They're a smart business, don't get me wrong. They knew they could get away with less quality and still charge an outrageous amount of money for it. But this is not necessarily good for the consumer. We get an intermediate guitar for professional quality prices.

Other people hate it for the style. Some people don't like the "peanut" look of it. Personally, I like the look and feel of a Les Paul STYLE guitar, not an actual Gibson. That's why I play Tradition S-20s. =P
#23
Quote by Dizeaz2112
Most people around my neck of the woods dislike Gibsons for MANY reasons. Mainly, because they aren't what they used to be. Yes, I'm only 15, but I live in Kentucky. I've seen my share of old guitars. If you look at a Gibson Les Paul made BEFORE 1970, then it's a masterpiece. 1970 and after, it's just crap. Gibson has been riding on their name for over thirty years. They're a smart business, don't get me wrong. They knew they could get away with less quality and still charge an outrageous amount of money for it. But this is not necessarily good for the consumer. We get an intermediate guitar for professional quality prices.


sg standards and lp classics are ****ing amazing, are you serious?
2008 M.I.A. HSS Strat
Marshall JCM 900 50w Dual Reverb
#24
Dead serious.
Hardcore Gibson fans of today don't know good quality instruments, because all they hear about are the big famous rock bands that use Gibsons. The thing is, they usually use OLDER Gibsons, because they are the good ones. Newer Gibsons are just crap. Gibson knows that people will continue to buy their instruments because of the name they've made for themself in the past, so they don't work as hard as they used to. Their quality has slipped. Now if you want to continue throwing thousands of dollars away for an 800 dollar worth guitar, go for it. I, however, will buy instruments worth the money I put into them.
#26
The Les Paul is seriously overpriced, there'snothing really even that great about it. The flying V is about half the price but is a much better guitar.
Xbox Live tag: Dream Away Rain
Add!

Quote by marko'd
dont sweat how quick your progressing, i heard that Jimi hendrix didnt get his legendary guitar skills until he was dead


Quote by Dreadnought
+ MOTHERFUCKIN' 1
#27
I"ve never stated that they were horrible guitars, or that I hated them. I also think that many of them are fantastic sounding guitars. I just can't justify the tremendous price some of them go for. Things may have been different in the past, but there are plenty of other manufacturers that have managed to not only make a product that can match a Gibson in sound and quality, but have in some cases even surpassed them (imo) at a fraction of the cost.

Is it because Gibson's getting worse? Maybe, but not necessarily. Other manufacturers could also simply be getting better at what they do. They're getting more competitive. In order to stay competitive, they have to shoot for a better product, at a better price.

"Well, Gibson still manages to sell guitars at outrageous prices, so how do you explain that?"

Marketing. They have the reputation from their past and one of the most recognizable names and guitar shapes around, second only to Fender (Fender won that crown in some study that was done worldwide, can't recall where I saw it, but if you have another study that says something different, feel free and mention it). Gibson knows they can tack on more money for their guitars because they know they have the reputation. They relentlessly seek out endorsements so that their guitars can be seen. One of their better moves of late was putting their names on Guitar Hero (Fender striking back by endorsing Rock Band). Gibson has money and knows how to use it to get the word out on their instruments. They can sell high priced guitars just on that reputation alone, and they know it. Does that make them bad? No, that's business. They're just really good at it. Does that make them the best guitars? I don't think they're bad guitars, but they're not the greatest.
~We Rock Out With Our Cocks Out!: UG Naked Club.~
Once in a blue moon, God reaches down from his lofty perch, points at an infant boy and proclaims, "This one shall have balls carved out of fucking granite."
#28
Quote by MrCarrot
4. Copies - As Dave_mc and likely countless others have proved, you can spend £500 on a Japanese LP Copy such as an Edwards, and get if not an equal but superior guitar for under half the price, proving how inflated the Gibsons are...


I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Quote by K33nbl4d3
I'll have to put the Classic T models on my to-try list. Shame the finish options there are Anachronism Gold, Nuclear Waste and Aged Clown, because in principle the plaintop is right up my alley.

Quote by K33nbl4d3
Presumably because the CCF (Combined Corksniffing Forces) of MLP and Gibson forums would rise up against them, plunging the land into war.

Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Et tu, br00tz?
#29
Quote by kyle62
I'd still happily play a Les Paul

But pay money for one? No way. I've got major issues with their build quality - sure they feel like a pro guitar, but the prices are unacceptable considering many companies build guitars of equal quality for around half the price! I've played a few Jap copies that are nearly as good as a Standard for about a third of the cost - yet the only things I can find to 'justify' Gibson's elevated prices are the nitro finish, the pickups - which aren't that great anyway- and the name on the headstock.

I think it's really the ethics of the company that bug me, a lot of manufacturers manage t make healthy profits woithout selling their soul in the process, but the big 'G' just can't seem to manage....


also +1
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Quote by K33nbl4d3
I'll have to put the Classic T models on my to-try list. Shame the finish options there are Anachronism Gold, Nuclear Waste and Aged Clown, because in principle the plaintop is right up my alley.

Quote by K33nbl4d3
Presumably because the CCF (Combined Corksniffing Forces) of MLP and Gibson forums would rise up against them, plunging the land into war.

Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Et tu, br00tz?
#30
i should add (and sorry for the triple post, i can't edit or my computer will crash) that i've played MIJ copies which are FAR SUPERIOR to non-custom shop Gibson LP standards and the like.
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Quote by K33nbl4d3
I'll have to put the Classic T models on my to-try list. Shame the finish options there are Anachronism Gold, Nuclear Waste and Aged Clown, because in principle the plaintop is right up my alley.

Quote by K33nbl4d3
Presumably because the CCF (Combined Corksniffing Forces) of MLP and Gibson forums would rise up against them, plunging the land into war.

Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Et tu, br00tz?
#31
There are two things wrong with the title of this thread.

It should be "Didn't realize so many Gibson Les Paul haters"

and secondly it should also say :

"Didn't realise there were so many Gibson Les Paul haters"

Because, reading the title, Didn't realise so many Les Paul haters - what? Swallowed chewing gum? Prefer SGs? Enjoy fishing?

Anyway, I have a problem with Gibson LPs. Only really because they charge extortionate amounts for their guitars.
#32
It's heavy, but I'm 14 and just played a concert yesterday with it. The weight isn't that bad, it's managable.
#33
Quote by J6strings21fret
Well, heres what I find usually...

People will say something dumb like "Oh...I dont like them cause everyone has them.."

But, here is what I do know about the negatives of a Les Paul

1. They are HEAVY. To some players it could be good, but not me.
2. One of my friends said he had to deal with horrible customer service when the jack broke out of the box.
3. They are rather expensive. And for the guitarist on a budget like me, it just wont cut it to buy a 2,000 guitar. Yes, it may be worth it but, I'd rather try out my options and try more guitars. For example, I found this great ESP that has amazing reviews and plays amazing. As much as I hate to use the words "Knock-off" it's great for the price and the quality your getting. It ever has a LP shape.

http://www.musiciansfriend.com/product/ESP-LTD-EC400VF?sku=512884&src=3WFRWXX&CAWELAID=60351359


I agree! You could find many guitars that sound like an LP for much cheaper. The Ibanez SZ is very LPish and the Michael Kelly Patriots.

About the weight issue though, they aren't heavy anymore. The new ones weigh about as much as an SG. Damn weight relief saving me from back problems... *grumble*
Quote by zgr0826
My culture is worthless and absolutely inferior to the almighty Leaf.


Quote by JustRooster
I incurred the wrath of the Association of White Knights. Specifically the Parent's Basement branch of service.
#34
Quote by Don_Humpador
There are two things wrong with the title of this thread.

It should be "Didn't realize so many Gibson Les Paul haters"

and secondly it should also say :

"Didn't realise there were so many Gibson Les Paul haters"

Because, reading the title, Didn't realise so many Les Paul haters - what? Swallowed chewing gum? Prefer SGs? Enjoy fishing?

Anyway, I have a problem with Gibson LPs. Only really because they charge extortionate amounts for their guitars.


+1
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Quote by K33nbl4d3
I'll have to put the Classic T models on my to-try list. Shame the finish options there are Anachronism Gold, Nuclear Waste and Aged Clown, because in principle the plaintop is right up my alley.

Quote by K33nbl4d3
Presumably because the CCF (Combined Corksniffing Forces) of MLP and Gibson forums would rise up against them, plunging the land into war.

Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Et tu, br00tz?
#35
Quote by danohat
There are a lot of guitars out there that I wouldn't buy because they are not intended for my genre of preference but I don't have real strong feelings about it.
How come so many haters?
I think a lot of people jump on the "quality ain't what it used to be" bandwagon but aren't even old enough to know what the quality used to be.
If you have true personal experiences I would like to know.
Thanks.

i dont really hate them but im not a big fan. well i hate the fact that so many people think they are god's gift to man. but ive played some that my friends have and i just dont think they suit me. i dont like the shape that much. im more of a strat shape, double cut away guy.
#36
les pauls are great!
heavy as hell with sustain that lasts forever. I love it!
My Gear
Guitars:
-Gibson Les Paul Studio
-Ibanez "lawsuit" Les Paul
-Ibanez S470
-PRS SE Custom

Amp:
Marshall TSL100
Marshall 1960a cab

Effects:
Dunlop 535q wah
Visual Sound Liquid Chorus

Pickups:
Guitarforce
MHD
#37
Quote by Dizeaz2112
Most people around my neck of the woods dislike Gibsons for MANY reasons. Mainly, because they aren't what they used to be. Yes, I'm only 15, but I live in Kentucky. I've seen my share of old guitars. If you look at a Gibson Les Paul made BEFORE 1970, then it's a masterpiece. 1970 and after, it's just crap. Gibson has been riding on their name for over thirty years. They're a smart business, don't get me wrong. They knew they could get away with less quality and still charge an outrageous amount of money for it. But this is not necessarily good for the consumer. We get an intermediate guitar for professional quality prices.

Other people hate it for the style. Some people don't like the "peanut" look of it. Personally, I like the look and feel of a Les Paul STYLE guitar, not an actual Gibson. That's why I play Tradition S-20s. =P


I forgive you because you're only 15.

While many of the Norlin era guitars are not that good, a lot of them were pretty damn awesome. Remember the Guitar Trader Les Paul? If you're making 1970 your cutoff point I have to disagree.

No offense, but to someone with a job $3000.00 isn't that much money. I mean, I save up and buy guitars I really want instead of blowing through a grand buying, modding and selling a whole bunch of stuff and losing money.

If Gibsons are 'Intermediate' guitars there sure are a lot of pros using them - even ones from (GASP) after 1970!!!

I had a 72 LP Custom that was one of the best sounding guitars I have ever oned (it was stolen).

I have no idea what a Tradition S-20 is. Post a pic of yours
Last edited by IceTele at Feb 9, 2008,
#38
Look, Guitars are tools, each with an intended purpose. That is why there are options, if not this debate would be null and there would just be a guitar...not a Strat, or Les Paul, or Iceman, or tele..etc. No one guitar is well rounded enough to be used for all tones and music styles. The Les Paul is a versitile guitar able to do a LOT of music styles and tones, but it is limited on others as will ANY guitar be. The Les Paul has been through its trials by fire and came out successful. Any one persons opinion about it is just that, THEIR opinion. If the Les Paul does not suit you for your style, or desired sound, thats fine. Does not mean it is a bad guitar. The Les paul has provided over 50 years of music works that SOOO many other guitars I see mentioned on this site try to mimic.
As for the heavy thing, its called wood density. This DOES have a direct relationship to the sound you have coming out. Heavy dense woods will provide a richer, fuller tone than a lightweight ash for instance. Again, a trait of the guitar intended for a purpose.
Washburn N4
Gibson Les Paul Standard 60's neck
Warmoth Strat w/ SD and fender PU's
Carvin VL212
ADA MP1
Boss GT-10
Last edited by 762ghost at Feb 9, 2008,
#39
I personally dont have a problem with LPs but then again i think its cause i'm a poor bastard
Extispicy: Predicting The Future Though The Study Of Animal Entrails...
#40
Quote by Deezlink
It's heavy, but I'm 14 and just played a concert yesterday with it. The weight isn't that bad, it's managable.

Remember Quasimodo, from that old Disney movie, or Eyegor, from the movei Frankenstein? That's you, at age 19.

I'm not even kidding. George Lynch has been playing heavy guitars his whole life, and one of his shoulders is lowr than the other.

I dislike Gibson as a company, more than anything. They'll put floyds and robot tuners on a guitar, but not a tummy carve or more comfey neck heel? Because God forbid we do anything to our classic design. Forget that. I buy guitars from companies that innovate for their players, not for their share holders.
Page 1 of 4