Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bad Dog Cafe' started by RoscoeElegante, Jan 27, 2019.
ES335 all the way!
Nada. Only overhyped, overpriced stuff
Gibson has a culture of rapid "improvement" compared to Fender; Leo would come out w/ a new guitar before he would go back and make slight changes in the original design of a existing model (often at the request of marketing) look at how long it took to move away from the original Tele wiring, or add a rosewood board. The LP changed multiple times and added multiple models between its introduction and the "desirable" 58-60 Standard models, and even those have significant differences between the years. Ditto w/ another favorite the ES-175..Single P-90 to twin PAFs in a few years.. almost a different guitar; at Fender those would have been two different models. Even something as simple as the ES-125 has had multiple body sizes and several significant variations. While both firms were constantly innovating they went about it in very different ways.
Les Paul Junior
Les Paul Special
...and any number of other ES guitars.
[Les Paul] SG
Plenty of acoustics too
The Les Paul.
No, it doesn't do everything.
But what does, it does extremely well.
Super 400 - 1934 Made its mark across all genre's of music.
I'd say there's a few things Leo didn't get right the first time.....and it depends on where you decide the 'first time' is. There were a few prototypes before the Esquire/Broadcaster/Tele showed up in it's current form.
It's very hard to compare F with G.....very different approaches to instrument building. Gibson was an 'old world' builder initially.....big archtops etc. Fender's business model right from the get go was more in line with the Henry Ford production line, interchangeable parts concept.
How is a Gibson string angle any different from a Martin or any other three on a side tuner headstock?
I'm actually not sure it is, although someone has likely done the measurements?
PRS/Heritage change the angle with their headstock design, so it's not required for there to be such an odd angle. I'm also guessing the increased tension on an acoustic negates the issues that causes.
A '52 Les Paul is definitely not an example of getting it right the first time. The neck angle and the bridge/tailpiece are messed up.
Gibson HQs: "Leo F is killing us on electric guitar sales ... get that Les Paul character and his weirdo log guitar back in here for a meeting, we're going to need that thing."
LP is popular and iconic now ... only because it was failing in sales, replaced by the committee designed SG, and available cheap in pawn shops for a a bunch of poor rock and roll players that would eventually find massive fame.
I’m going to be a heretic and say Leo got it right the second time. The strat is the most iconic and popular guitar in history as is the P bass from the curvy shape on to today.
Speaking of electrics and not acoustics I would vote for the ES 335, it's the only model that was successful from day one, never left the catalog and has only had minor changes through the years. The other main electric models were market failures when first introduced:the Les Paul, Flying V, Explorer, Firebird.
On the other hand Gibson must have a record for introducing failed models that when re-introduced became very successful.
ES 335 345 355
All variations on a wonderful comfortable great sounding design.
Well I think they got the P90 and the tune o matic right for sure. J 200 maple. The prewar mandolins.
To reduce production costs wouldn't something like a flatop Les Paul Jr. sin.gle or double cut, no frills like layers of binding, no need for binding on the neck, dot fret markers , choice of P-90s or mumbuckers . A simple Les Paul.
Those reduced costs could make the Les Paul more affordable and still retain other models in a custom shop order fashion. JMHO
I like mine, too - except there were too many knobs (4!) so I took two of them off. Also, as much as I love to play it, the P90s just never sound as nice as my Fender pickups do, probably has more to do with ME than the guitar, though.