Why are the Gibson ES-330 or ES-335 said to be VERSATILE, but not the Les Paul or SG?

[customxke]

I honestly think its because the ES3XX guitars have F holes....people see a big body guitar with F holes, and "hear" jazz or what have you. In a blind test, I don't think many people can tell the difference between a 335 and a Les Paul. As an owner of a 1960 335, I can say that to my ears, I can't hear any of the benchmark hollowbody tones in a semihollow/semisolid guitar. Kind of like how people talk about Jimmy Page's quintessential 'burst tones on tracks where he used his tele; we just have that image of the low slung Les Paul. Often, it's our eyes that inform what we hear, and not our ears. YMMV, flame suit on, etc.

[Jabberwocky]

The aural memory is unreliable. Game of Chinese Whispers, anyone?

[vinlander]

I honestly think its because the ES3XX guitars have F holes....people see a big body guitar with F holes, and "hear" jazz or what have you...

I still hit myself on the head for having let my dad's 73 Gibson Les Paul Signature



go away when it was offered to me back in the late 80s...
the metalhead I was being more into Randy Rhoads, flying Vs and other spiky sillyness

[Flyin' Brian]

I always get a chuckle out of subject matter like this. As guitarists we fancy ourselves to be creative, open minded and accepting of many different ways of doing things. Yet we tend to categorize and pigeon hole almost everything, from what's a "jazz" guitar, what is "jazz" what is "fusion" what is "good" and "bad" music. We often do this more than non-player will ever consider doing it and we tend to be VERY dogmatic about our opinions. We even have posts about what a jazz guitarist should look like!!

Mike Stern a fusion player because he uses effects? Tell that to Metheny, Scofield, Frisell and Abercrombie for starters. Although I have had a VERY well known player tell me that those guys "aren't jazz".

Labels are made up by the media and critics so that they can appear to know what they're talking about and by marketing people so they can sell products. I like music that I like and don't care for music that I don't like, regardless of the label.

To answer the OP, I don't understand the 335 being more versatile than a Tele, a Les Paul or even an ES-175 for that matter. The versatility comes from the player not the machine.

[Little Jay]

To answer the OP, I don't understand the 335 being more versatile than a Tele, a Les Paul or even an ES-175 for that matter. The versatility comes from the player not the machine.

True of course. But on some guitars it's just easier to get that sound you hear in your head (which is probably dictated by the music you listen to and maybe even by the false( ?) expectation of wanting to sound like what everybody thinks a jazz guitar should sound like)

[Flyin' Brian]

True of course. But on some guitars it's just easier to get that sound you hear in your head (which is probably dictated by the music you listen to and maybe even by the false( ?) expectation of wanting to sound like what everybody thinks a jazz guitar should sound like)

Yep...false for sure!

[Little Jay]

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.

But I bet Pat Martino wouldn't mind this lapstick!

The Green-tone is way different (I like it!), more proof that there's not just one "jazz-sound".....

[peskypesky]

Some people are more comfortable thinking in little, constrictive boxes. Those people are not usually very creative, so I don't listen to what they say when it comes to things artistic.

[Tom Karol]

I still hit myself on the head for having let my dad's 73 Gibson Les Paul Signature go away ...

I had one too! Bought it used in 1975 and kept it for 20 years. Wish I still had it as well.

[SuperFour00]

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 used to play a 175 most of the time. I currently have a Les Paul and a 335. They all sound different. Furthermore, I swapped the pickups between the Les Paul and the 335. The 335 still sounds chunky and textured and the Les Paul still sounds dense and oozes sustain. The sound, at least in the particular guitars I've owned from the models we're discussing, has as much to do with the body design as the pick-ups, at least in my experience. I'll grant that others may have different experiences for a variety of reasons. I don't see confusing the fast decay and percussiveness of an archtop with the piano quality of a Les Paul's sound.

[peterbright]

Perception...perception...perception