Christian Guitar Forum

Christian Guitar Forum (http://www.christianguitar.org/forums/)
-   Guitar (http://www.christianguitar.org/forums/f13/)
-   -   todd's gibson guitars review, (don't hate me) (http://www.christianguitar.org/forums/t189639/)

Josey Wales 09-19-2010 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ax (Post 3592450)
Not to me, and not to mention that the SG is literally a Les Paul with a thinner body and different shape. I could see how the thinner body would react a bit differently and it might not sustain as much, however, it's the same recipe. Mahogany + Mahogany + Dual Humbuckers + Stop Trem = Gibson.

The original Flying V was made of Korina but I'm pretty sure in recent years (reissues excluded) they're now made of mahogany.


Some of these, Les Pauls, SGs, and Vs included, have maple tops and some (reissues and special editions only, however) have P90s.

As to the necks, yeah the 60s models and reissues certainly do have thin necks, but they as a company have abandoned the thin neck as part of their equation in the name of MOARSUSTAINTONEZ.

I'm not faulting anybody for liking Gibsons, I know there are a lot of Gibson faithful here, but they're just really uninteresting guitars to me.

The only two interesting guitars they've ever released (to me) was the Robot Guitar and the other one that had the weird pickup that could pick up each individual string so you could mix string levels while recording (which as it turns out is not very practical, just a really cool concept).

And If I really wanted I could put a robot tuning system in any guitar really.


Ax?

what is your guitar of choice?

Ax 09-19-2010 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by josey wales (Post 3592460)
Ax?

what is your guitar of choice?

My home made on. See the sig.

If I had to choose a mass produced one, probably a Jaguar or a Mustang.

BillSPrestonEsq 09-19-2010 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ax (Post 3592450)
Not to me, and not to mention that the SG is literally a Les Paul with a thinner body and different shape. I could see how the thinner body would react a bit differently and it might not sustain as much, however, it's the same recipe. Mahogany + Mahogany + Dual Humbuckers + Stop Trem = Gibson.

Using this logic, all fenders are the same as well. But sticking with SGs and LPs they sound dramatically different with the LP having much more of a full, midrange pronounced sound with SGs having more high end. This is exclusive of the pickups as I have tried the same pickups in both guitars.
Quote:

Some of these, Les Pauls, SGs, and Vs included, have maple tops and some (reissues and special editions only, however) have P90s.
I can think of a bunch of Gibsons over the years that have had p90s and even single coils and mini humbuckers.

I still want to try a nighthawk with 3 pickups at some point.
Quote:

As to the necks, yeah the 60s models and reissues certainly do have thin necks, but they as a company have abandoned the thin neck as part of their equation in the name of MOARSUSTAINTONEZ.
If this were the 70's I think you would be right. Since it is not, and I have owned Gibsons with pretty much every neck profile imaginable, I think you really are just kind of unfamilliar with what is available.
Quote:

I'm not faulting anybody for liking Gibsons, I know there are a lot of Gibson faithful here, but they're just really uninteresting guitars to me.

The only two interesting guitars they've ever released (to me) was the Robot Guitar and the other one that had the weird pickup that could pick up each individual string so you could mix string levels while recording (which as it turns out is not very practical, just a really cool concept).

And If I really wanted I could put a robot tuning system in any guitar really.
Well, the old nighthawk has always intrigued me and I have requests out for any in this area that come up for sale in...

I have not spent much time with explorers and Vs. However, the sonic difference between an SG and LP is at least as large as strat to tele.

And the inovations which Gibson has really brought to market over the years includes p90s, humbuckers, mini humbuckers, robot tuning, plek on a production guitar, etc.

The Les Paul recording contained a whole bunch of interesting stuff, made it heavy as a boat anchor, but Les Paul sure loved it. If you want weird and unusual guitars, mess around with some of the offbeat Gibsons.

What company has really put out a broader range?

Josey Wales 09-19-2010 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ax (Post 3592479)
My home made on. See the sig.

If I had to choose a mass produced one, probably a Jaguar or a Mustang.

dude, verry nice, how hard was it to make the neck, because i want to build one eventually, neck included, and i figure that would be the hardest to build.

also i really like mustangs too

Ax 09-19-2010 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq (Post 3592489)
Using this logic, all fenders are the same as well. But sticking with SGs and LPs they sound dramatically different with the LP having much more of a full, midrange pronounced sound with SGs having more high end. This is exclusive of the pickups as I have tried the same pickups in both guitars.

I'm talking about, literally, the SG IS a Les Paul. GIBSON LES PAUL CUSTOM (1961) - Elderly Instruments


Quote:

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq (Post 3592489)
I can think of a bunch of Gibsons over the years that have had p90s and even single coils and mini humbuckers.

Until today I had never seen one with a single, but it's only a middle position and that is in what I would consider the most interesting Gibson I've ever seen, it's still butt ugly though, more thoughts below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq (Post 3592489)
I still want to try a nighthawk with 3 pickups at some point.

Until a few moments ago I had no idea what the Nighthawk was. It's interesting but still butt ugly. The slanted humbucker and pickup mount might be the least aesthetically pleasing thing that I've ever seen Gibson do. It's almost painful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq (Post 3592489)
If this were the 70's I think you would be right. Since it is not, and I have owned Gibsons with pretty much every neck profile imaginable, I think you really are just kind of unfamilliar with what is available.

I'm specifically saying reissues excluded. Their lines of new guitars specifically have thicker necks for more sustain. A Gibson spokesperson told me this, in person, to my face. I've tried dozen or so Gibsons, a vintage or two, some that belonged to friends, and then ones from the stores. Even these "thin" necks had an odd feeling profile to them that was uncomfortable to my hands.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq (Post 3592489)
Well, the old nighthawk has always intrigued me and I have requests out for any in this area that come up for sale in...

It's definitely interesting, more so than a Les Paul, at least it's different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq (Post 3592489)
I have not spent much time with explorers and Vs. However, the sonic difference between an SG and LP is at least as large as strat to tele.

Maybe, I don't hear it but i guess your ears may be more discerning than mine :shrugs:

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq (Post 3592489)
And the inovations which Gibson has really brought to market over the years includes p90s, humbuckers, mini humbuckers, robot tuning, plek on a production guitar, etc.

I'm not saying they aren't innovative, but their main line production guitars are just boring. I'm not discounting Gibson as a company, I just think they're overrated by a lot of people who see one and start posting "ZOMGIBSON" all over the web. They're also overpriced.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq (Post 3592489)
The Les Paul recording contained a whole bunch of interesting stuff, made it heavy as a boat anchor, but Les Paul sure loved it. If you want weird and unusual guitars, mess around with some of the offbeat Gibsons.

I'm unfamiliar with it,

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq (Post 3592489)
What company has really put out a broader range?

Broader range? I dunno.. Ibanez?

Fender's range may not be broader but they're certainly more interesting.

gtrdave 09-19-2010 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ax (Post 3592550)
I'm talking about, literally, the SG IS a Les Paul. GIBSON LES PAUL CUSTOM (1961) - Elderly Instruments

Until today I had never seen one with a single, but it's only a middle position and that is in what I would consider the most interesting Gibson I've ever seen, it's still butt ugly though, more thoughts below.

Until a few moments ago I had no idea what the Nighthawk was. It's interesting but still butt ugly. The slanted humbucker and pickup mount might be the least aesthetically pleasing thing that I've ever seen Gibson do. It's almost painful.

I'm specifically saying reissues excluded. Their lines of new guitars specifically have thicker necks for more sustain. A Gibson spokesperson told me this, in person, to my face. I've tried dozen or so Gibsons, a vintage or two, some that belonged to friends, and then ones from the stores. Even these "thin" necks had an odd feeling profile to them that was uncomfortable to my hands.

It's definitely interesting, more so than a Les Paul, at least it's different.

Maybe, I don't hear it but i guess your ears may be more discerning than mine :shrugs:

I'm not saying they aren't innovative, but their main line production guitars are just boring. I'm not discounting Gibson as a company, I just think they're overrated by a lot of people who see one and start posting "ZOMGIBSON" all over the web. They're also overpriced.

I'm unfamiliar with it,

Broader range? I dunno.. Ibanez?

Fender's range may not be broader but they're certainly more interesting.

You are certainly allowed to have you opinions, right or wrong as they may be.
I also like how you managed to throw the "they're overpriced" dig in there, too.
That's a very typical ingredient of the average Gibson h8erade drink. :yep:

BillSPrestonEsq 09-19-2010 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ax (Post 3592550)
I'm talking about, literally, the SG IS a Les Paul. GIBSON LES PAUL CUSTOM (1961) - Elderly Instruments

Except Les Paul demanded they take his name off it because that was not the guitar he designed, and he didn't like SGs. So seriously a failed attempt to make that claim. History bears out quite the opposite on that subject.



Quote:

Until today I had never seen one with a single, but it's only a middle position and that is in what I would consider the most interesting Gibson I've ever seen, it's still butt ugly though, more thoughts below.
Not true. Their cheapest model, the melody maker, the best selling gibson of all time, has singles, bridge, or bridge and neck.

Quote:

Until a few moments ago I had no idea what the Nighthawk was. It's interesting but still butt ugly. The slanted humbucker and pickup mount might be the least aesthetically pleasing thing that I've ever seen Gibson do. It's almost painful.
There are a ton of offbeat ones that never took. Guitarists are traditional.

Quote:

I'm specifically saying reissues excluded. Their lines of new guitars specifically have thicker necks for more sustain. A Gibson spokesperson told me this, in person, to my face. I've tried dozen or so Gibsons, a vintage or two, some that belonged to friends, and then ones from the stores. Even these "thin" necks had an odd feeling profile to them that was uncomfortable to my hands.
But thats bunk. The LP standard I had had a thin neck. Just like fender, standard offerings come in several profiles.


Quote:

It's definitely interesting, more so than a Les Paul, at least it's different.



Maybe, I don't hear it but i guess your ears may be more discerning than mine :shrugs:
Not at all. Can you hear the difference from a tele to a strat? Its at least that big.

Quote:

I'm not saying they aren't innovative, but their main line production guitars are just boring. I'm not discounting Gibson as a company, I just think they're overrated by a lot of people who see one and start posting "ZOMGIBSON" all over the web. They're also overpriced.
Not compared to fender, and their main production guitars are what sells. As a company recently, they have done a lot of wild stuff, but people buy the 1950s era Lps so they make them.


Quote:

I'm unfamiliar with it,

Its an obscure model, the one Les Paul favored, and it was pretty nuts.
Quote:

Broader range? I dunno.. Ibanez?
I can think of way wackier Gibsons...
Quote:

Fender's range may not be broader but they're certainly more interesting.
To you maybe. I find fender pretty uninspiring myself. I love teles though. You may not like Gibson, but most of your objective points here are false.

Josey Wales 09-20-2010 07:35 AM

guys, i really appreciate your input but this thread is just about my opinion of the first time ever picking up gibsons not a place to bicker back and forth about what company is better, who's company is bad and makes bad products, and all that, so if you wouldn't mind not doing that, it would be great.

sorry if i come across as a jerk, it's just this sort of thing doesn't seem productive IMO

gtrdave 09-20-2010 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by josey wales (Post 3592710)

sorry if i come across as a jerk...

It's not that.
It's just that you're holding 2 guns in your avatar pic... :x

Josey Wales 09-20-2010 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtrdave (Post 3592711)
It's not that.
It's just that you're holding 2 guns in your avatar pic... :x

HAHA i knew it, i thought the multiple weapon situation intimidated people.

ABPOS 09-20-2010 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tenwatt (Post 3591862)
My absolute favorite guitar to LOOK at is a Les Paul. I've played 100s of them and have only been able to find a small few that I actually liked the feel and sound of. I wish I would have never gotten rid of my Black Beauty. I can't stand the LOOK of an SG but I haven't played one that didn't feel and sound great to me. Gibson, to me, has the most inconsistent quality of any guitar company. Once you find "the one" it will be irreplaceable though.

So far in my search for the perfect guitar, the SG is on the top of the list. With a Tele up there too. For me, it just seems to come down to those two guitars as what fits right. I hate the way SG's look though. And I wish there were more colors to choose from, in my price range. There are a few others that seem to fit well.

I seem to like the way a lot of Ibanez Hollow Bodies feel. I'm not sure what to think about that yet. Actually, I haven't played one I didn't like. I'm just not sure if I want to go hollow body or not.

Josey Wales 09-20-2010 12:21 PM

dude, i love hollow body guitars, i love the way the sound, so i wish i could get one but i'm more broke than the bp oil company

ABPOS 09-20-2010 12:43 PM

I'm just not sure that I want a hollow body, if' it's going to be me only Electric for a while. I have to think about it. But I do like playing them.

Josey Wales 09-20-2010 12:45 PM

oh yeah i totally understand that, i wouldn't want just a hollowbody, unless it was the perfect thing for me. i'd at least want a solid and hollow and acoustic.

BillSPrestonEsq 09-20-2010 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by josey wales (Post 3592710)
guys, i really appreciate your input but this thread is just about my opinion of the first time ever picking up gibsons not a place to bicker back and forth about what company is better, who's company is bad and makes bad products, and all that, so if you wouldn't mind not doing that, it would be great.

sorry if i come across as a jerk, it's just this sort of thing doesn't seem productive IMO

My point was just the objective facts.

Now, to the point of the thread.

I would play some older Gibsons as well. I think they are a bit of an acquired taste after playing on a 25.5 inch scale.

I just wish I could hand you my LP custom through the monitor to play. Such is a guitar I would really like to get your take on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ABPOS (Post 3592839)
So far in my search for the perfect guitar, the SG is on the top of the list. With a Tele up there too. For me, it just seems to come down to those two guitars as what fits right. I hate the way SG's look though. And I wish there were more colors to choose from, in my price range. There are a few others that seem to fit well.

I seem to like the way a lot of Ibanez Hollow Bodies feel. I'm not sure what to think about that yet. Actually, I haven't played one I didn't like. I'm just not sure if I want to go hollow body or not.

I am going to throw something out there.


You want to strum, not play with gobs of distortion, right? I really think from what you have said you will be happiest with a semi-hollow guitar. I just don't see any drawback for you.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:47 AM.



vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.


Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2