-
Beautiful shot, thanks for posting. Although I don't own one myself, I've been a fan of the Gibson SG for many years. I find its tone to be very similar to the Les Paul while having a far more manageable weight. As far as the unusual body shape, it could be that my generation grew up around the instruments, so I don't find it as odd as some of the older gentlemen on this board.
As to whether or not SGs could be as adept at jazz as Teles, I believe the answer is a resounding "yes". In my opinion, guitars begin to sound very much alike when their tone knobs are rolled off. The individual character of many of the instruments I've had experience with is best conveyed when the tone knob is wide open. The result is that I've been able to coax suitable jazz tones out of just about every guitar I've owned so long as it's had two characteristics, a neck pickup and a tone knob.
-
09-17-2014 09:17 AM
-
-
I think that closes this thread nicely!
Originally Posted by jbernstein91
-
True. Although Les Paul never played it. He didn't like the look, found the neck too slim and disliked the early side-way vibrato system. He wasn't involved in the construction at all and didn't renew his contract with Gibson. Originally Posted by Woody Sound
I like how remote these pics look from the Angus Young/heavy metal imagery that came later, retrospective irony.
http://cps-static.rovicorp.com/3/JPG...er=allrovi.comLast edited by cyberprimate; 09-17-2014 at 10:19 AM.
-
I've owned an SG, doublecut/24-fret LP and own a D'Angelico semi-hollow (an archtop as well, which I don't play much anymore). I've played a lot of jazz on all of them. I've also played a fair amount of jazz on others' variants on "regular" Les Pauls. My SG and LP DC (sold both) had neck pickups mounted further back toward the bridge, which cut the bass and mids considerably and made it harder for me to get a "classic" fat jazz tone. They also didn't blend in to well with the other tones in a jazz group, and I tended to struggle to hear myself in groups with them. The regular LP's and semis I've played don't have that issue. There's substantial overlap in tone between most semis and most "regular" LP's. but I prefer the ergonomics of Semis -- the smaller LP body isn't quite right for me, and I find many uncomfortably heavy. I also have a Strat (which I find to have the best ergonomics of all), but I prefer the sound of the semi for jazz (for many years, though, the Strat was the only electric I played). For other music, it's basically a coin flip between the Strat and the Semi; both work great, but a little differently.
I think a lot of people wind up following similar decision paths WRT choosing between a semi and a LP style guitar (and passing on SG's), but I know plenty of people who just play LP's for everything. There is a fashion/tribal/cliche element to people's choices -- Tele's are for country, LP's are for rock, Srats are for blues, archtops are for jazz, semi's are for Larry Carlton ... -- but people who actually make their decisions based on honestly figuring out what works for them are all over the map.
Edit: Older SG necks (though I gather not the current production ones) with short tenons and skinny profiles can be really unstable -- some are like having a whammy bar. This also limits their appeal. But that Giant Steps vid pretty much puts to the rest the idea that they can't be used for jazz.
JohnLast edited by John A.; 09-17-2014 at 10:32 AM.
-
-
It's sound set up that muffles every details. I doubt one can get that Grant Green woody tone with a lapstick, but most importantly it's the actual experience of playing both instruments that is vastly different.
Last edited by cyberprimate; 09-17-2014 at 11:43 AM.
-
To sum my prefs up -
Les Paul - HEAVY!
Telecaster - Light. And cheap!
-
I owned a Les Paul Studio for a while, very nice guitar, but I always felt I was playing a piece of finely crafted furniture that happened to have strings stretched across it, whereas with a Strat, when you hit it, it buzzes and wiggles like a live animal that you have to wrestle into submission
I don't like the build or ergonomics of SG's.
-
I think ergonomics is a good argument. Scotty Moore didn't keep his ES-295 because palming the strings on the bigger L5 and Super 400 was less tiring. Wes Montgomery couldn't have played comfortably on any solid body. Short people (many girls, Angus Young) love the SG for its small size and lightness. etc.
Last edited by cyberprimate; 09-17-2014 at 03:33 PM.
-
Holy cow! That '67 SG Standard sounded outstanding on the Debussy stuff. The tone was to die for.
I have played jazz on Les Pauls, 335s, L6-Ss, Telecasters, Stratocasters, and an entire range of archtops. It's all good.
-
While not a Gibson, I had an early '70s Guild S100 as my only electric for a couple of years, and it was an amazing sounding and playing guitar.
-
IMO, the 330 is even more versatile than the 335. The tone can be adjusted to give the warmth of a humbucker or the clarity and bite of a single coil.
-
+1 zigzag Although I own a 335, I agree that the 330 is more versatile. I wouldn't mind, at some point, replacing my 335 with a 330.
-
I love the sound of a LP, but if I'm couch jammin' (or practicing) they just slide down my lap -- I prefer bigger bodies, but somehow the tele doesn't have that same problem for me! I've been shopping 335's for a while now, but I have yet to find one that displaces my Sheraton --- they are fickle beasts! I am jonesing for a 330 though . . . access plate on the back panel --- brilliant!!!!
-
Great solo!
-
oops. . . thinking of the 333 (I think) on that back panel issue -- that's the one I want! . . . getting a bit mixed up on the Gibson models. RE: the newer 330 -- love the vibe, so-so on P-90's, but no go because the neck is just too darn fat for me
-
Hmm? I like the big neck on the early 330. De gustibus...
-
Your nickname and profile picture are a dead giveaway you wouldn't mind a 330! Originally Posted by Greentone
(Haha, I used that exact same picture as my profile pic on this forum for a while! Wouldn't mind a 330 either, but I'm very attached to my 333......)
-
SG & LP vs 335 Style
....my .02 cents....
I find the 335 more an archtop - - size, comfort, playability, weight, which I've been used to since day one.............I'm always seated, w/ low volume setting....after years of playing that 335 size - or 16 in. archtops, ( L-4 and 175 ) I bought an LP and I was 'all arms', and didn't like playing it on my left knee....never could get comfortable with it, strapped or not, so I finally traded it...
again MHO.......
-
Chiming in a little late here, but I find a Les Paul that has PAF style pickups (57 Classic, Burstbuckers, etc) to be VERY versatile. Some have higher output pickups that are meant for hard rock...and there's been lot of players who made it a popular rock guitar obviously and its beefy body can do that well. Though many of them are weight relieved now too. In terms of its scale length and body shape, a Les Paul sort of reminds me of a smaller, solid body es175. I prefer it to a telecaster myself. Maybe it's the scale length, I don't know.
That said, I do think a 335 is more versatile. It can jazz out better and rock practically just as hard.
-
Hallpass,
I agree. Every Les Paul that I owned or played for any serious length of time (i.e., more than a week), I found to be an extremely versatile guitar. This includes, by the way, an early-60s SG/Les Paul Custom that was a very sweet guitar with an angelic voice and a neck that wasn't as thin as they can tend to be.
My very favorite Les Paul for universal service (i.e., taking the place of a Telecaster) was a 1972 reissue of some sort of early 50s Les Paul. It had the wrap around bridge, two P90 pickups, and a cherry-burst finish. I cannot recall if the guitar had a volute (I don't recall that it did), but the guitar sure was an astoundingly good guitar for _any_ style of music.
This being said, I would still rate my 335 ahead of the Pauls, or else I guess I would still have one and not the other. Moreover, I suppose that I would have to rate the 330 slightly ahead of the 335--assuming that it isn't the long-neck version--because I find that I simply prefer not having that much neck sticking out there, and I prefer the sound of the acoustic body/P90 to that of the semi-acoustic body/humbucker combination.
Good point, though, about the Les Paul--most excellent guitar.
-
A few years back, I picked up a Heritage 157 (Les Paul Custom style guitar) in order to have a feedback proof guitar that would handle a variety of styles. While the sound was great and the neck was comfortable, I could never get along with the heavy weignt and small body size. The combination of the heavy weight and small body made it very difficult for me to play seated for long practive sessions. as a result, I wound up selling the instrument in favor of a large carved archtop.
In retrospect, I suppose that the problem was not the guitar, rather it was me. I've been playing a certain style of guitar for so long that the further I get from that ideal, the more uncomfortable I become.
As for the tonal attributes of the Les Paul, I suspect that I would have a tough time telling a Les Paul with some tone rolled off from a 175 with similar tone knob settings.
-
I hear you. Moreover, I suspect some of us can't shake the visual image of non - jazz players wearing sillier than jazz hats brandishing Les Pauls.
-
Absolutely. Not only do I love the sound of a good acoustic archtop, but I dig the look of a grown man in a well fitted suit playing an elegant instrument. My ideal of what a jazz player should look like is Wes Montgomery. The old black and white videos I've seen of him always show him looking dapper and carrying himself with class. Originally Posted by Greentone
That said, I'll take the more casual modern look any day over 70s and 80s Barney Kessel. IMO that era in his career defined "wardrobe malfunction".
Last edited by Klatu; 10-03-2014 at 09:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos