Gibson Les Paul and why

But "better" is a very subjective concept.

Right. For me, I like the "focus" that the non-relieved guitars have in their tone. Someone else may just prefer the softer note bloom and what I perceive as a slight scooping of the mids that the weight relieved guitars have. To each their own I say, and I am glad that Gibson gives us the choice.

I'm exactly the opposite with Telecasters incidentally - I prefer the semi-hollow over the slabs. I like that it takes the icy edge off of them.
 
None for me, way too heavy and too thick with a sharp contour. A guitar doesn't have to be heavy to sound good. I got this one that is in the SG weight range.

full

But I just recently realised the Epi Ultra is chambered and has a belly cut. I understand this is blasphemy, but I just might ...

upload_23378_1.jpg


LpUltraChamber.jpg


WEll Dr. I had an Ultra and it was VERY nice and very worth the $$$ it was light and almost TOOO comfrotable the Nano mag was groovy and the rich tones you could get from it where like no other LEster--- it was more like the BB King Lucilles tone ;)

Now what this about heavy you all are crying about ?????

This is a 11lb'er
ripper1.jpg
 
I don't like the weight, odd shaped body and lack of access to upper register. They do sound nice, but I will take an SG every time.
 
The thing I like about les pauls is that it's the only guitar that has the switch in the "right" place, I mean, where you can see it.

Switching pickups during a song is a bitch when the switch is down there.

That was one of the reasons that made Jimi Hendrix prefer regular strats upside down instead of lefties
 
And Random Flights of Fancy with Best Friends with Ghouls number 2
Ha, in the following clip, one comment was made by a guy I second his sentiment on
"Every time I hear him play, I want to practice in a room for as long as it takes me to be as good as he is."

 
Back
Top