Fuck you Gibson, fuck you

bob the r0bot · Post by **bob the r0bot** » Sat Sep 25, 2010 9:38 pm

hotrodperlmutter wrote:delonge is a semi-hollow, billy. you should know this mang!

i can vouch that a dirty fingers in the bridge sounds class in a semi-hollow, but it really needs some versatility in the form of a p90 in the neck!

► Show Spoiler

That thing is pretty fly

finboy · Post by **finboy** » Sat Sep 25, 2010 9:51 pm

did not know they make white les paul juniors now, fuck the billie joe model

Phil O'Keefe · Post by **Phil O'Keefe** » Sun Sep 26, 2010 4:50 am

soundofseventythree wrote:Some might consider the LP a signature model of sorts, I mean it does bear the Les' name (now he was someone worthy of a signature model!!!). But as I understand it he DESIGNED the instrument, or was instrumental in its design at the very least. But true to Gibson form (even way back then) they stuck his name on the SG even though I believe he had nothing to do with that design. From wikipedia (but I read it elsewhere years ago first): The new Les Paul (The SG) was popular, but Les Paul himself did not care for the new design, and requested the removal of his name from the new model (however, he was photographed with the new model several times).

I've also heard that Les was not fond of the 1961 SG "Les Paul", but I've also heard that one of the other reasons for the fact his name came off of Gibsons in 1962 was due to his bitter divorce from Mary Ford that year, and a desire to not have to pay her a share of the royalties from the sales. By the time Les Pauls were re-released in '68, their divorce was settled and he would not be obligated to pay her a percentage of the proceeds from the new licensing agreement.

ekwatts · Post by **ekwatts** » Sun Sep 26, 2010 10:29 am

I just love the fact that Gibson actually discontinued the Les Paul at one point. Basically proves how shortsighted and daft they can be as a guitar company, and it's never changed. They had a bunch of great ideas from a handful of men and executed them in ways that just aren't imaginable nowadays.

paul_ · Post by **paul_** » Sun Sep 26, 2010 7:41 pm

ekwatts wrote:I just love the fact that Gibson actually discontinued the Les Paul at one point. Basically proves how shortsighted and daft they can be as a guitar company

Kinda like Fender did with every guitar except the tele and strat, but for a far shorter period of time.

Fran · Post by **Fran** » Sun Sep 26, 2010 7:55 pm

I sense Paul_ is a Gibson man.

paul_ · Post by **paul_** » Sun Sep 26, 2010 7:59 pm

I'm a Fender man, I like Gibsons fine too though. Fender had their coolest guitars out of production for similar/longer periods of time than the LP was, and they came back for identical artist-use related reasons to the LP.

Sonic Youth = Cream

Gomer · Post by **Gomer** » Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:01 pm

Chad Kroeger sounds more or less constipated. I guess that's versatile.

cobascis · Post by **cobascis** » Sun Oct 10, 2010 2:17 am

Gibson chose him they knew they were making a good investment cuz they like his style an they see sumting dat only professionals can c not dimwits like u ppl.

Will · Post by **Will** » Sun Oct 10, 2010 2:36 am

cobascis wrote:
Gibson chose him they knew they were making a good investment cuz they like his style an they see sumting dat only professionals can c not dimwits like u ppl.

Luzzle. I'll concede he's a very profitable commodity. This is just another case of Gibson misreading their market. If they had kicked this to Epiphone, they'd do great.

If you think about it historically, this is PROBABLY no more ridiculous than the Trini Lopez model from the 60s (so you could get sweet "Lemon Tree" tones.)

Mo Law-ka · Post by **Mo Law-ka** » Sun Oct 10, 2010 2:43 am

Will wrote:
cobascis wrote:
Gibson chose him they knew they were making a good investment cuz they like his style an they see sumting dat only professionals can c not dimwits like u ppl.
Luzzle. I'll concede he's a very profitable commodity. This is just another case of Gibson misreading their market. If they had kicked this to Epiphone, they'd do great.

If you think about it historically, this is PROBABLY no more ridiculous than the Trini Lopez model from the 60s (so you could get sweet "Lemon Tree" tones.)

but the Trini Lopez was awesome and a somewhat unique model, this, however, is not.

Will · Post by **Will** » Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:41 am

They'll do it for Chad Kroaker, but there's still no Woody Guthrie J-45 or Bob Dylan Nick Lucas model.

Although, to be fair, they reissued both the banner-label J-45 and Nick Lucas a couple years ago. Still, it's an endorsement that MAKES SENSE. If there can be both a J-160E and J-160E John Lennon model, they can do this.

serfx · Post by **serfx** » Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:33 am

mostly, i want to know, why the fuck are we still talking about this?

24HRS2MDNT · Post by **24HRS2MDNT** » Sun Oct 17, 2010 8:44 pm

Will · Post by **Will** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:42 am

HLY SHT. They actually do make a Woody Guthrie sig model:

http://www2.gibson.com/Products/Acousti ... Specs.aspx

And it lists for about 2/3rds the price of that shitty les paul.

Doug · Post by **Doug** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 3:37 am

This musician and his $4000.00 signature Les Paul are taking quite a beating. I just gotta jump in here and point out that there's no other guitar I know of that is so advanced that it too has star decals on the neck so you can see where your left hand is on the neck in a darkened room.

24HRS2MDNT · Post by **24HRS2MDNT** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 9:55 pm