Set necks
- Thread starter Soloshchenko
- Start date
G
guitlouie
Guest
He's also like a million years old, I seriously doubt he has too much to do with the whole thing anymore. Still plays guitar every now and then though!
Les is not about money;
1961, when Gibson changed the design without Paul's knowledge. He said he first saw the "new" Gibson Les Paul in a music store window, and disliked it. Though contract required him to pose with the guitar, he said it was not "his" instrument, and asked Gibson to remove his name from the headstock. Gibson renamed the guitar the "SG", and it also became one of the company's best sellers. (From wikipedia).
1961, when Gibson changed the design without Paul's knowledge. He said he first saw the "new" Gibson Les Paul in a music store window, and disliked it. Though contract required him to pose with the guitar, he said it was not "his" instrument, and asked Gibson to remove his name from the headstock. Gibson renamed the guitar the "SG", and it also became one of the company's best sellers. (From wikipedia).
G
guitlouie
Guest
I have nothing but respect for the man...I have five original Capitol recordings from the 40's and 50's and am constantly on the lookout for more, reasonably priced of course. I also have an old issue of Goldmine that I bought just for the article on Lester the Inventor (multi track recording anyone?) I was just kidding around before. I mean there is no more iconic figure in the history of the electric guitar, except maybe Leo, but then I have never heard him play....again JK!
ibob74 said:
Don't believe all you read in Wiki.....
Gibson's side of the story is a bit different. For one thing, that nasty divorce, and royalties being split with Mary was part of it. Second, Les at that time was a has been, having re-re-re-re-issued "How High the Moon" on several LPs, all doing rather poorly by any measure. Gibson was losing money through lack of sales on the LP, and wanted to cheapen and modernize it. And Les's 10 year contract had expired.
There are many inconsistencies in the Les Paul/Gibson story. Gibson contends more credit than Les affords them (the basic design, the arched top, material choice), Les takes credit for things that are insignificant - the colors, the ill-fated trapeze bridge (that WAS his design), minutia.
Later, in early 68, Les says he called Gibson and told them that old LP guitars were selling for several thousands of dollars (not so in 68), Gibson claims they wanted the LP line back as it was, due to better commercial viability.
Its about the money. Its always about the money.
-CB- said:
Funny that this should come up because I wanted to post a new topic asking about it.
Gibson loves to boast the benefits of their set neck design. They claim it increases sustain. But I've wondered if it would really make any discernible difference. I would think that if the joint is tight enough, there shouldn't be much difference. It's not like there's "play" in a bolt-on that soaks up the vibrations and lessens sustain. Those things are solid tight. So it seems it should transfer vibrations through the neck and body like a glue, right? But what do I know?
Kostas
Hero Member
- Messages
- 1,383
The Fender based bodies and necks are intended for bolt on construction only. Gluing them will not get you the sound of a set neck as it is more than a glue VS screw thing.Soloshchenko said:
Gibson, as far as I know, has used two different types of joint. The long tenon joint was used in the beginning, somehow along the way it changed with the short tenon joint. The guitars that have the long tenon joint these days, are those of the Historic line.
Nando Vallart
Epic Member
- Messages
- 8,256
I'm thinking these days: if you try to build a bolt on neck with a pocket in this kind of volume, perhaps you got the kind of sustain that's spoke about Les Paul... Perhaps Warmoth can do it as *Special Warmoth Series* someday (hint 
)
)Kostas said:
Only the Les Paul had the long tenon, which was changed to short on its re-introduction after some years of nonproduction. The SG changed its neck attachment from one that was glued more on the bottom, to one that has glued support on the sides as well. The newer style attachment (from the mid-late 60's) is stronger. Gibson has also made neck-thru-body designs (Firebird, maybe others), and has done bolt ons (later L6s, S-1, Maurauder, etc etc).
On thinking of the SG joint (original), its not to dissimilar from taking a bolt on neck and setting it in its pocket with glue. With mostly the bottom of the neck being glued (and top of pocket) there is a strong tendency for the wood to delaminate its fibers and you get a two piece guitar. Having a side supported pocket (later SG's, newer LPs) is a much stronger way to do things, and why you can't just "superglue" a bolt on neck into its pocket.
bpmorton777
Hero Member
- Messages
- 1,651
you might be thinking of the kind of bolt-on neck joint that PRS does. I think their bolt-ons (the CE models) use the same joint as the glue-ins , they just use bolts instead of glue.
Brian
Nando Vallart
Epic Member
- Messages
- 8,256
I've never played a PRS, but if it's correct, is the opposite of what he is asking
jackthehack
Epic Member
- Messages
- 5,630
If this thread doesn't die soon I'm going to post another pic of a marginally clad ex-girlfriend....
Nando Vallart
Epic Member
- Messages
- 8,256
How about the thicker pocket's neck?? :toothy12:
Similar threads
