LP vs SG

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

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 !!!

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.

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

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

who's_pearljam? wrote:

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.

Gotta love those front jacks!