Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bad Dog Cafe' started by soulgeezer, May 15, 2018.
So, what do you think?
(And, as a facetious corollary, who remembers their SATs?... )
That's a tough question. I'll have to think on it awhile.
If the statement is logical symbols to mean 'strat is to LP as tele is to SG', then no
5 way switch/trem system/double cutaway - doesn't fit. Nor indeed does the development chronology
Telecaster: Les Paul :: Stratocaster : SG
But the second part could be Stratocaster: Flying V or Explorer
and you could add Jazzmaster : Firebird
Not in my world. They are al distinct models, unrelated other than the number of strings.
Do a little research into the development of each model and you will see the errors in the original statement.
It might also be a matter of perspective...
Isn't the Strat considered the "top" of Fender's solidbody line, just as the Les Paul is considered the "top" of Gibsons solidbody line? And, the Telecaster considered the "second" guitar in the lineup, the same way the SG is the "second" guitar in Gibson's lineup? Then, aren't they comparable that way?
The top of Fender's line is the Jaguar. Gibson the Les Paul Custom
Like warrent said: Telecaster: Les Paul :: Stratocaster : SG
Telecaster and Les Paul were original models that were developed and refined as the Strat and SG, respectively.
However the analogy is so imperfect that you can put any one of the guitars into any slot and justify the answer based on the particular feature you are looking at.
I thought Leo's original idea was that the Jazzmaster would be the top of the line?
Telecaster is to Les Paul as Stratocaster is to SG
My reasoning is that the Telecaster and Les Paul came first; the Strat and SG were later additions/replacements.
One can lose it's head like a chicken when its neck is wrung. The other just looks like it has a chicken's head.
No, it is telecaster to the Les Paul as Stratecaster is to the SG. Chronologically from both companies and single cut to double cut. Works either way.
Edit: I change the vote to "no" realizing it is different than soulgeezer's original question.
Teles and Les Pauls were early solid body rivals aimed at roughly the same buyers (yes...that can be disputed and start another thread...).
Strats were a sleek and modern upgrade and rumour has it that the SG was Gibson's response.
It was until the Jaguar came along.
I wouldn't dispute that at all. Just keep in mind the Les Paul was not a big seller for Gibson and the SG was a response to the poor sales of the bursts. Leo was just adding product to increase his line of guitars.
I think the sg is def a reply to Fender - surrender saying 'we cannot get the money for a carved top lp so are going to come down to your level and sell planks', but that is as much a reply to a tele as anything. Strats had all the radius work and stuff, taking Fender up from the tele flat plank
I thought the LP Special and Junior were more plank -Tele style guitars, way before the SG.
I was told there would be no math on this test.
make thunderbyrd head hurt
I get that currently there is the idea that a Les Paul has more craftsmanship in it than a tele. But Gibson already had the carving machines it didn't really cost them that much to implement the design of the Les Paul.
What your missing is that the Les Paul was a sales dud. It peaked in 1953 and sales declined every year there after until they introduced the SG. (they sold 600 odd Les Paul standards in 60 and 1600 or so in 61) Ted introduced the flying v and the explorer in an attempt to capture the market that the strat had developed and we all know how well that went. The double cutaway was an attempt to get something the market wanted not to save money.