So, are you that good or do you just have money to burn?
Written: Nov 30 '00 (Updated Dec 01 '00)
|
Product Rating:
|
|
|
Pros: Great workmanship, durability, fantastic sound
Cons: A bit heavy, expensive
|
|
|
| HawgWyld's Full Review: Gibson Les Paul Standard Limited 50s Neck Electric... |
There ought to be a test that one has to pass before buying one of these things. Specifically, if a person can't demonstrate a certain level of guitar mastery, he doesn't have any business plunking down around $3,200 for a Les Paul. These are damned expensive little guitars, and you might as well spend thousands on something else if you're not totally dedicated to playing guitar and playing well.
So, due to my feeble, barre-chording, E-Z solo style, I don't own a Les Paul. I haven't played in front of an audience for years, and I mostly play guitar for my own enjoyment.
I have, however, spent my fair share of time banging out songs on one Les Paul Standard or another. I was in a band for a time in college, and the lead guitarist had one of these (he was the one who supplied the "musicianship" to our stuff while "jangle boy" here pounded out chords on my Fender Telecaster and concentrated on angry vocals). So, I'd often pick up the Les Paul and play around on it while we were practicing or whatever. I also had a roommate in college who had one of these. He loved it and treated it very carefully but, for some reason, didn't mind my playing it.
Before I get into the merits of this guitar, let me put in my opinion in the whole "Les Paul vs. Fender" debate. For years, folks have been saying, "Fender is better." That well-founded argument has been countered with, "No, Les Pauls are better."
From what I can tell, Fender Stratocasters, Fender Telecasters and, yes, Gibson Les Pauls are fine guitars. They all have some very good characteristics, and they all have something to offer that the other ones don't. Fender and Gibson make some damn fine instruments, and it's hard to go wrong with the "best" guitars made by either company.
Having said that, let me (finally!) get around to actually mentioning the Les Paul. What you get with this thing is a very expensive guitar, but also a very good one. The Les Paul Standard features a couple of humbucking pickups that are loud enough to overpower any Fender on the block. Bass absolutely pours out of those things (granted, the "lead" pickup is "darker" than the "rhythm" one), and blistering highs, too, are reproduced well by this guitar. Volume and clarity are the trademarks of these guitars.
Also, sustain is fantastic on the Les Paul. Sure, this is a heavy guitar, but what else would you expect? Come on, the thing is made from a chunk of mahogany and topped with maple. That combination of solid wood might make for a heavy guitar, but it also makes for a guitar that provides a lot of sustain.
Look at it this way -- if you hit a chord on a Stratocaster or Telecaster, it stops ringing a long time before one hit at the same time on a Les Paul. The Fenders might be lighter, but many believe the sustain that can be achieved on a Les Paul is worth the price. Also, these guitars don't seem to have the same trouble with "accidental" feedback as Fenders, and I've heard that feature attributed to the solid, heavy design of the Les Pauls.
And, let's talk about the finish on a Les Paul. It's simply beautiful and glossy, and the finish looks as if it extends "deep" into the wood of the guitar. The black and "Sunburst" finishes make for some of the most beautiful guitars ever constructed, in my humble opinion. Hell, for the amount of money it takes to buy one of these things, Gibson better make them beautiful.
Even if you don't know what you're doing on guitar, people will assume you're a hell of a player if you show up with one of these. Listen, it doesn't matter if you're the type of guy who thinks a "barre chord" is something used by the guitarist in that blues combo that plays in your favorite watering hole on Thursday nights. It doesn't matter if you think a "G string" is something you pull of your girlfriend's leg with your teeth. If you show up with a Les Paul, people will think you're Jeff Beck or Jimmy Paige. These guitars really are that impressive.
The workmanship, too, is fantastic. These guitars are both beautiful and durable, and the hardware and electronics last for years. I'm also a fan of the action on these guitars -- the strings are nice and low and allow for very easy and precise finger-work. I tend to "test" the action on a guitar by seeing how easy it is to make a reliable barre chord. You can make barres on this thing with little effort.
Now, I should point out that the necks on these will seem a bit thick to someone who's used to Fenders. After playing a Fender for a while, the neck on a Les Paul will feel like a baseball bat or acoustic guitar neck by comparison. That might be a problem for people with small hands, but most folks, I think, will find what I did -- it takes some getting used to, but the action is so great that the thicker neck's not really a problem.
One huge difference between the Les Paul and Fenders (both Strats and Teles included here) is that the tone of the Gibson is a lot "muddier." The Fender is better-suited for that jangly, "Buddy Holly" clean sound (maybe that's because Buddy played a Strat) than the Les Paul. Fenders are just a lot more glassy and transparent sounding. You might be able to mess around with the settings on a Les Paul to get it closer, but those humbuckers will just never sound as transparent as the single coils on a Fender.
I also miss the Strat's tremelo bar on the Gibson because I just love to cheat and mess around while bending notes. Sure, you can compensate for that bar a bit by simply bending strings and such on a Les Paul, but I like to cheat. The Les Paul, though, will stay in tune longer that a strat. The "fixed" bridge on the Les Paul just holds the guitar in tune much better than the "floating" one on a Strat with a standard tremelo system (not to mention you can stretch the hell out of your strings with hyperactive tremelo work).
I realize this review has turned into a bit of a comparison between the Fenders and Les Pauls, but I can't help myself. A lot of folks love to argue over the merits of these guitars, but I think they're all great. Probably the best way to illustrate the difference between Fenders and Les Pauls has to do with the time I saw Buddy Guy play at the King Biscuit Flour Hour Blues Festival in Helena, Ark.
That was way on back in October, 1988 and Buddy Guy started off his set with his trademarked Telecaster which featured a humbucker in the neck position of the instrument. He broke a string on the Telecaster and switched to a Les Paul. The difference was dramatic.
The guitar tone on the Les Paul was much denser and "darker." The increased bass level was something else that was noticeable. Where the Telecaster produced a thinner sound that was just full of treble, the Les Paul was muddier and threw more bass at the crowd. Both guitars, by the way, sounded just fantastic, even if they were very different.
Now, if you're going to drop the bucks on one of these things, don't go cheap on the amp. That Crate G-20 you found at the pawn shop for $50 just won't cut it with a Les Paul. You've got a top-notch guitar, there, so spend the bucks on a Fender Twin Reverb or a distortion machine made by Marshall (yes, I love those tube amps). If you go for a Marshall stack, though, make sure to protect the Les Paul should you get excited and start jumping off the stack.
By the way, the Les Paul can grind out a beautiful distorted tone. Just ask Ace Frehley, who was never caught without his Les Paul while playing in KISS and, in fact, is the namesake of a line of "signature series" Les Pauls (both from Gibson and it's red-headed stepchild, Epiphone).
Oh, and I've got to mention a story about Les Paul himself. Sure, everyone knows that he was a pioneer in terms of recording techniques and instrument style. Everyone knows that he is one of the most influential guitarists on the planet. However, there's a story about him that I've heard time and time again through the years. Evidently, the man just hates rock n' roll. God, I hope that's true. How ironic is it that the man who's name is almost synonymous with rock n' roll guitar hates that style of music?
So, if you're good enough to take full advantage of the incredible range and versatility of one of these guitars, run out and get one. If, however, you're a hack like me, save your money. You can get a good guitar for about a quarter of the price of a Les Paul Standard. After all, after recovering from the "sticker shock" of the Les Paul's price tag, either that $800 Fender California Fat Strat (complete with the Tex-Mex pickup set of two single coils and a humbucker) or $400 Danelectro (ultra retro and very cool, by the way) doesn't seem so expensive, does it?
Oh, and forget about buying this for someone as a gift. A guitar is a very "individual" purchase, and I'd never dream of getting a guitar for someone without letting him check it out first.
Recommended:
Yes
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
HawgWyld
|
 - Top 200 |
|
Member: Ethan C. Nobles
Location: Benton, Ark.
Reviews written: 1433
Trusted by: 495 members
About Me:
The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient.
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.