LP vs SG

MichaelMcKevin

Wondering what people will say about this. I'm considering either one somewhere down the road. The SG would favor me in terms of weight cuz i have shoulder problems. What would I be missing with the SG?

exhausted

not really missing anything with the SG. it's just a different tone. brighter, maybe a bit grittier than an LP.

better fret access with the SG. certainly lighter.

play em both. play a few. one after the other. the contrast really comes out with you put them back to back.

Beav

I hear a lot of people bitch about the Paul's weight. With your shoulder problem, I'd go for the SG. I've got a Gibson SG, Epi Les Paul and Fender Strat. The SG is my #1 (and the lightest).

lucylespian

Current production LP's are now all chambered, and they are not heavier than anything else.
SG's have better upper fret access it's true, but TBH, unless you need 24 frets, it's not a drama. It took me a while to get the hang, but I bend on the 22nd fret now.
SG's are great guitars for sure, but there is something about a Les Paul that is just a cut above. An SG does does not match an LP for tone and sustain, chords are fatter.
But, it's about you, and pick the one you like.
Disraeli Gears was recorded on an SG, Hendrix used one, countless awesome rock songs have been done on them.
If I could only pick one, it would be an LP for sure, preferably a Historic. The current ones are using South Amercian mahogany and the tone is as close to the 1959 burst tone as has ever been attained.

ianvomsaal

It's already been said -- the Les Paul's tone is better than the SG's.
Tone-wise I like the Les Paul better (no comparison between the tone).

Honestly, I use to hate SG's until I received a 1971 SG-1 as payment for some session work I did.
That SG is the lightest guitar I've owned, and the neck is absolutely my favorite (best neck I've ever played).
It's also the loudest electric guitar (unplugged) I've ever owned, and has great sustain (pickup isn't my favorite).

Thussssssss . . . the tone isn't anywhere near any of my Les Paul's (I've never played an SG with comparable tone).
I've played quite a few other SG's looking for one that compares to a Les Paul, but I don't it exists (not enough wood).
Also, I've never found an SG that plays like mine (I haven't found an SG made within the last 25 years that plays like
mine). I actually love the neck so much that I'm gonna eventually get it's measurements reproduced for other guitars
like my Les Pauls and such.

If I could get an f-holed Les Paul with that neck shape, feel, and access I'd be in heaven.
Cheers . . .

- Ian C.T. vom Saal

lucylespian

ianvomsaal wrote:

It's already been said -- the Les Paul's tone is better than the SG's.
Tone-wise I like the Les Paul better (no comparison between the tone).

Honestly, I use to hate SG's until I received a 1971 SG-1 as payment for some session work I did.
That SG is the lightest guitar I've owned, and the neck is absolutely my favorite (best neck I've ever played).
It's also the loudest electric guitar (unplugged) I've ever owned, and has great sustain (pickup isn't my favorite).

Thussssssss . . . the tone isn't anywhere near any of my Les Paul's (I've never played an SG with comparable tone).
I've played quite a few other SG's looking for one that compares to a Les Paul, but I don't it exists (not enough wood).
Also, I've never found an SG that plays like mine (I haven't found an SG made within the last 25 years that plays like
mine). I actually love the neck so much that I'm gonna eventually get it's measurements reproduced for other guitars
like my Les Pauls and such.

If I could get an f-holed Les Paul with that neck shape, feel, and access I'd be in heaven.
Cheers . . .

- Ian C.T. vom Saal

There is one out there, it is called a Johhny A sig, and it's a very sexy beast.

keeponrockin

Have you looked at other brands as well?

The Michael Kelly Patriot is looking more attractive to me, after a p/u swap.

Anon

I've got an SG and i love it. It's definitely been one of the most versatile and comfy guitars i have ever played. So much fun to play and they are not back breakers like a Les Paul. Playing my SG, to me at least, kinda feels like you're playing an acoustic with amazing fret access. It just resonates but the sustain dies off earlier than a LP. A Les paul totally has more sustain, and there is no doubt the tone is to die for. You will get a better tone with an LP.

I still don't think SG's get enough credit for being versatile. A good SG, say like a historic LP/SG or an original, with low to medium output paf's, can be used for everything. Seriously.

Because you said you already have shoulder problems you need to try a LP out and see how it feels. Not much good to you if it's gonna be troubling you. Seriously, you should play both and decide what you like better.

gimmesometruth27

i have 3 les pauls and the weight has never really been an issue for me. once i got my LP custom it was a little heavier than my 2 standards but it was not bad. yes it took a few days to get used to it and i had some soreness at my left shoulder ac joint (only because i have a prior ac separation from high school football) but i got used to it. now i can't even tell i have one strapped to me.
my sg is light as a feather and i love the tone, but i would buy 5 les pauls before i bought another sg. its just my opinion. i like the feel of having a big les paul hanging on my shoulder. i suggest you play alot of both and go with what you think is right. if you get a LP and weight is a concern, try using a wider strap so the weight is spread out over a larger surface area of the shoulder. save the narrow thin straps for light guitars like strats and sgs.

ianvomsaal

lucylespian wrote:

There is one out there, it is called a Johhny A sig, and it's a very sexy beast.

I've played a few Johnny A's (they're nice playing guitars), but seriously I've never found a neck that feels like my '71.
I don't know what it is, but it's something special (I've even played other '71 SG-1's, but even they don't feel the same).
However, I know a tech that films you playing from the side to see how you play, what your hand does, ect, and then
he shapes your neck accordingly. I've already had him do this to two of my necks (fits like a glove when he's done).
I think if anyone can do what I want to have done he can.

- Ian

lucylespian

I swear to God I dunno why I waste my fucking breath somtimes, but the new LP's are all fucking chambered and are not heavy !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anon

lucylespian wrote:

I swear to God I dunno why I waste my fucking breath somtimes, but the new LP's are all fucking chambered and are not heavy !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Having a bad day are we?

and before anyone asks, the chambers are strategically drilled so as not to cut down on the sustain and resonance of the guitar...

I still like the feel of my SG better, but i am hearing ya lucylespian

Pacomc79

ianvomsaal wrote:

It's already been said -- the Les Paul's tone is better than the SG's.
Tone-wise I like the Les Paul better (no comparison between the tone).

Honestly, I use to hate SG's until I received a 1971 SG-1 as payment for some session work I did.
That SG is the lightest guitar I've owned, and the neck is absolutely my favorite (best neck I've ever played).
It's also the loudest electric guitar (unplugged) I've ever owned, and has great sustain (pickup isn't my favorite).

Thussssssss . . . the tone isn't anywhere near any of my Les Paul's (I've never played an SG with comparable tone).
I've played quite a few other SG's looking for one that compares to a Les Paul, but I don't it exists (not enough wood).
Also, I've never found an SG that plays like mine (I haven't found an SG made within the last 25 years that plays like
mine). I actually love the neck so much that I'm gonna eventually get it's measurements reproduced for other guitars
like my Les Pauls and such.

If I could get an f-holed Les Paul with that neck shape, feel, and access I'd be in heaven.
Cheers . . .

- Ian C.T. vom Saal

Have you had a chance to wank on the new ES-339 yet??

Dear Gibson Custom Shop.... please build one of these with an ebony board with ES 330 small block style inlay, and Grover Tuners, Then make the neck pickup a humbucker sized P90 with a hot 57 Classic in the bridge... Thanks... Your Friend, Paul.

lucylespian

Pj_Gurl wrote:

Having a bad day are we?

and before anyone asks, the chambers are strategically drilled so as not to cut down on the sustain and resonance of the guitar...

I still like the feel of my SG better, but i am hearing ya lucylespian

Nah, you are thinking of the weight relief holes. They have gone way further than that. The new Lp's have a huge chamber, which actually improves resonance and sustain, making them very light.

I'm definitely not knocking SG's, just emphasising that weight is not really an issue with LP's at present.

Here's a link wiht some pics. I believe teh second pic shows accurately the current chambering of LP's.

http://www.lespaulforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=123911&highlight=chamber

who's_pearljam?

I like both! I have a '68 SG that I bought new, and that guitar rocks. There IS a bit of a different vibe between the Paul and the SG.
My SG has a bit more ragged rock and roll sound to it. A light guitar like that and the Mahogany makes it resonate more.

I think a sound chamber in a Les Paul will give it a little more zing and resonance. There's no way it will sustain the same, but the difference would hardly be noticeable. Each guitar is different, and sustain has to do with stability and mass in the wood, but just as much with the set up and how well the guitar is put together. Loose parts and improper set up have just as much to do with sustain as the wood itself.

Resonance is more what I look for than sustain. Resonance comes more from wood type and the overall construction. It's like the "bounce" and vibration that the strings cause in the guitar. An SG is loud when unplugged because it's light, and acts like a speaker because of the vibration, and thusly tends to sound brighter when you crank that amp up.

Mahogany is more a darker sounding wood in a heavy guitar like a Paul, because of the mass so the maple on the Les Paul top brightens the sound a bit, too. And adds that weight, too.

That being said, my favorite Gibson is my ES-335, so what the heck do I know!
I shaved the neck a bit on my 335 and it's a LOT like the SG now, too. SG's DO have great necks

And I actually play my Strat more than anything these days so I should just step out! I'm no help here!

Anon

lucylespian wrote:

Nah, you are thinking of the weight relief holes. They have gone way further than that. The new Lp's have a huge chamber, which actually improves resonance and sustain, making them very light.

I'm definitely not knocking SG's, just emphasising that weight is not really an issue with LP's at present.

Here's a link wiht some pics. I believe teh second pic shows accurately the current chambering of LP's.

http://www.lespaulforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=123911&highlight=chamber

Very cool. Thanks for that!

dunkman

the title of this thread broke my Acronym Excessiveness In Operator's Utilisation... A.E.I.O.U. for short.

exhausted

the concept of weight relieved or practically hollow les pauls seems so counterinuitive. but interesting.

Drew263

lucylespian wrote:

I swear to God I dunno why I waste my fucking breath somtimes, but the new LP's are all fucking chambered and are not heavy !!!!!!!!!!!!!

yeah...i was about to post this, but hey LP = heavy no matter right? :eek:

althought my '06 isn't chambered and it's still not that heavy.

lucylespian

Drew263 wrote:

yeah...i was about to post this, but hey LP = heavy no matter right? :eek:

althought my '06 isn't chambered and it's still not that heavy.

yours, like my 2003 standard , will be weight relieved, which is about 6-8 inch holes drilled through the body.

there is an official blurb from gibson about how they stffed around with weight relief hole placement, and came up with teh presents chamber.
Purists hate it, but there is no denying these guitars are lighter and sound great. It is a compromise against declining stocks of quality timber frrom sustainable sources.

Jam10

I have a LP and I love it. I had the same dilema....LP or SG so I tried them both and I loved the LP. Even though it's heavier, it's worth it. It sounds and plays amazing. I found the neck on the SG to be a little too long for my liking but I loved the way it sounded overall. If I could have both, I would, but like I said I love my LP and i'm glad I got it!

ianvomsaal

lucylespian wrote:

It is a compromise against declining stocks of quality timber frrom sustainable sources.

Which makes no sense to me since they're using the same amount of wood, but now they're drilling holes in it.
Okay, I get that some people want a lighter LP, but in actuality they're wasting wood by doing this.
So what are they using the left-over hole shavings for (stoking the fire in their steam engines - LOL).
Comm'on See what I mean about wasting wood (I find that reasoning a bit hokey on their part).
Why don't they just come out and say "the demand has gotten to the point where we need to start making
lighter guitars to compete in this ever growing consumers market" - that's a reasonable statement.
I think Gibson's just trying to sound politically correct, maybe green(er), yet I think they're full of BS.
My LP's are heavy - I came to terms with that when I bought them . . . Les Pauls are generally heavy.
Okay, I like LP's - like their looks, tone, feel, and playability, therefore I deal with the weight - big deal.

- Ian

keeponrockin

ianvomsaal wrote:

Which makes no sense to me since they're using the same amount of wood, but now they're drilling holes in it.
Okay, I get that some people want a lighter LP, but in actuality they're wasting wood by doing this.
So what are they using the left-over hole shavings for (stoking the fire in their steam engines - LOL).
Comm'on See what I mean about wasting wood (I find that reasoning a bit hokey on their part).
Why don't they just come out and say "the demand has gotten to the point where we need to start making
lighter guitars to compete in this ever growing consumers market" - that's a reasonable statement.
I think Gibson's just trying to sound politically correct, maybe green(er), yet I think they're full of BS.
My LP's are heavy - I came to terms with that when I bought them . . . Les Pauls are generally heavy.
Okay, I like LP's - like their looks, tone, feel, and playability, therefore I deal with the weight - big deal.

- Ian

Ya, I was thinking the same thing. I don't know, an LP with the holes... Something about that doesn't sit right.

lucylespian

ianvomsaal wrote:

Which makes no sense to me since they're using the same amount of wood, but now they're drilling holes in it.
Okay, I get that some people want a lighter LP, but in actuality they're wasting wood by doing this.
So what are they using the left-over hole shavings for (stoking the fire in their steam engines - LOL).
Comm'on See what I mean about wasting wood (I find that reasoning a bit hokey on their part).
Why don't they just come out and say "the demand has gotten to the point where we need to start making
lighter guitars to compete in this ever growing consumers market" - that's a reasonable statement.
I think Gibson's just trying to sound politically correct, maybe green(er), yet I think they're full of BS.
My LP's are heavy - I came to terms with that when I bought them . . . Les Pauls are generally heavy.
Okay, I like LP's - like their looks, tone, feel, and playability, therefore I deal with the weight - big deal.

- Ian

Well, there is a long answer to this, but teh short answer is that mahogany weight varies enormously depending on where it is grown and how much mineral it contains as a consequence. Lighter grades are considered to have superior resonance and are preferred by "aficionados".
There havae been countless threads debating teh pros adn cons and teh "not rightness" of weight relief holes and now the chambering, but after all the arguing two facts remain.........


they sound great

they are not heavy !!

This year theer is HOnduran mahogany coming through courtesy of something called "The RAinfoest Alliance", which is related to sustainable logging, being used for Custom Shop Historics, and teh weight and tone is superb.

I agree that LP's should feel substantial, but remembering that all my comments are relating back to the OP's shoulder/back trouble and his concern about excess weight, for him chambered LP's are just the ticket !!!

ianvomsaal

My little debate wasn't about the weight of the mahogany . . . It was about Gibson drilling holes in
the mahogany and then talking about declining stocks of quality timber from sustainable sources.
By drilling holes in the wood they're wasting wood.

- Ian C.T. vom Saal

BTW - I own a "Rainforest Alliance" Les Paul Standard, and it's unquestionably
THE HEAVIEST LES PAUL I OWN, and it also has the darkest tone
of any Les Paul (make that any guitar) I've ever played.

lucylespian

By that logic, they should have square necks, and don't dare go for a cutaway, cos shaping them down is wasting wood too.

What is your problem here ? I'm just trying to explain to GiventoCarve that LP's are not all heavy and why, and that his choice between an LP and an SG should not be driven b the belief that they are. I'm not pushing an agenda, nor am I being argumentative.
Go tell all the happy owners of 07 R9's that their guitars are heavy and dark, they might be more interested than me.

keeponrockin

lucylespian wrote:

By that logic, they should have square necks, and don't dare go for a cutaway, cos shaping them down is wasting wood too.

What is your problem here ? I'm just trying to explain to GiventoCarve that LP's are not all heavy and why, and that his choice between an LP and an SG should not be driven b the belief that they are. I'm not pushing an agenda, nor am I being argumentative.
Go tell all the happy owners of 07 R9's that their guitars are heavy and dark, they might be more interested than me.

What Ian was saying was, saying drilling holes is saving wood is b/s. He may not have a problem with it (I don't know) but it really doesn't save wood. Nobody would claim shaping a neck or carving a top is saving wood.

exhausted

well, this thread went super retarded. makes me want to play the SG.

who's_pearljam?

exhausted wrote:

well, this thread went super retarded. makes me want to play the SG.

I just pulled mine out last night in honor of this thread.
There is something I love about the SG and the Strat. The cord goes out the front of the body so you can sit on the couch and play it without the cord getting stuck in the cushions.
I actually A/B-ed a Paul and an my "68 SG last night, and I re-fell in love with that trusty SG again. I've had it since it was new.

ianvomsaal

keeponrockin wrote:

What Ian was saying was, saying drilling holes is saving wood is b/s. He may not have a problem with it (I don't know) but it really doesn't save wood.

Exactly (thank you) - I'm not trying to be argumentative here - though I think it's more
of a moot point now -- Maybe I felt like my point was being missed somehow.
Clearly I have no problem with holes in the Les Paul, only Gibsons saying that
they're cutting holes in an attempt to save wood (and reduce weight - LOL) . . . what
a bunch BS - I'm all for reducing weight (my Rainforest Alliance LP STANDARD kills me, and
I sometimes wish Gibson had drilled some holes in the guitar, but they weren't doing it in '99).

Either way, I recommend that people play both Les Paul's and SG's to see what they prefer.
I like how much better my SG plays (unquestionably), but like most tone connoisseurs out
there, I think the Les Paul's tone is far better (so pick & choose what matters to you most).
Cheers . . .

- Ian C.T. vom Saal

lucylespian

OK, when did Gibson say that they were saving wood by drilling holes ?? They drill holes because good light weight premium grade mahogany is hard to get, so they use heavier grades and drill holes in it to make the weight acceptable.