# Why don't Les Pauls usually have 24 frets or floyd roses?



## olsonuf (Aug 17, 2012)

I've always been a floating tremolo user and required 24-frets so I just never happened to own a LP style guitar over the 20 years that I've played guitar.

In fact, it seems that every guitar and bass I currently own or have ever owned has had a superstrat-style body, with only 3 exceptions ever. 

Here's what I don't understand:

Why do LP's so often have 22 frets and no trem except maybe an occasional bixby?
Is there something about the aesthetic of Les Paul-style guitars that doesn't work well with these features? I don't have any personal basis to gauge the overall aesthetic, but it seems there is a certain "purist" or "classic" or "conservative" type of appeal (not meant to criticize this view in any way, just in the way an admirer of one style appreciates "perfection")
Was Gibson just already offering the Les Paul and it was awesome enough and just mostly didn't bother to embrace the higher-frets/floating trem as they were introduced or didn't feel the need to improve on a classic?
Is a whammy bar on a Les Paul just "wrong" somehow? 

Plus, I want to understand why ESP didn't offer a floyd rose option on their EC-407 "LP" style 7-string, and understand how the aesthetics of a LP body/build/tone style affect the demand for one.




*For example, since I own so many strat-style guitars, for me: *

I like that a strat-style body is "orderly" and neat around the rounded portion at the bottom, even somewhat reserved and conservative, while the contours are graceful and slick. Yet there are two giant horns up there. Some are rounded, like Fenders, and give that classic original "wild" look, while on other guitars the points get sharper in all sorts of inventive and unique ways and become more threatening and/or demonic.  

Also, in a way, a strat style body is like a flame; a rounded bottom with two lapping flames coming to a point at the top; the neck is almost like a 3rd, especially w/ a nice pointy headstock of some sort.

Add 24 (or more) frets, whichever specific electronics configuration suits whatever I'm going for, and a floating trem - holy crap, a theme park just opened on my guitar, and at least on any GOOD strat/superstrat, the cutaway gives me access to the whole range of it.





So anyway, if any of you Les Paul guys would like to share your perspective I'd love to hear these kinds of things that draw you toward playing Les Paul style body shapes/builds. I'm really starting to want one (a 7-string one) but I'd really like it to have a floating trem.


----------



## ZEBOV (Aug 17, 2012)

Because Henry Juszkiewicz would rather make atrocities like the Firebird X instead of something that makes sense.


----------



## 3074326 (Aug 17, 2012)

They don't sell. They've tried and are trying again. The Shred Les Paul is a Studio model, but they just aren't popular. Guys who play Les Pauls just don't want Floyds on them most of the time.


----------



## NickS (Aug 17, 2012)

You can get Floyd Rose trems on Carvin Les Paul style guitars, both the 22 and 24 fret versions. I highly recommend you check them out, I have a 22 fret TOM bridge version.


----------



## Demiurge (Aug 17, 2012)

Personally, I love the LP shape- it's comfortable and aesthetically-pleasing. I'm not really a trem user at all, and I have never in my near two decades of playing have composed or played anything requiring more than 22 frets and am probably not alone in those regards. 

Perhaps the LP is one of those shapes a little bit more ingrained in tradition and seen as less of a platform for innovation. There was a "super strat" movement in guitar design in the past few decades that somehow didn't quite translate to the LP; maybe it's the bolt-on design of a strat that makes it more friendly to the concept of Frankensteining and modding- you can swap-out necks, reroute slab-bodies easier, etc. to accommodate those performance-based changes like necks with more frets and aftermarket trems.


----------



## mcd (Aug 17, 2012)

The axcess is the only decently sold FR version, and if Alex Lifeson didn't have a lot to do with it's popularity it probably wouldn't be. Keep the LP bodies with OFR to the ESP/LTD realm.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Aug 17, 2012)

I don t see whats wrong with a Floyded LP with extra frets. 

But if you want one...

ESP LTD Deluxe EC-1000 FR Electric Guitar | Musician&#39;s Friend


----------



## MstrH (Aug 17, 2012)

Les Pauls are cool guitars. I have owned one and may yet own another.
BUT, I think that they were originally designed using construction techniques they naturally borrowed from acoustics and semi-hollows: chunky set neck, not the best upper fret access, less than 24 frets. Before amplification, guitars were more of an accompaniment type of instrument, they didn't need a full two octave range. As time went on, people became fond of the vintage vibe and have a hard time associating anything very "modern" with LPs. (Yes, there is the Robot and the Axxess, but they don't sell worth sh#t) Another poster mentioned the mod-friendly nature of bolt necks, and I think there's something to that as well. Still, I can't believe how Fender and Gibson can thrive by continually photo copying their past ad nauseum.


----------



## snowblind56 (Aug 17, 2012)

Demiurge said:


> Personally, I love the LP shape- it's comfortable and aesthetically-pleasing. I'm not really a trem user at all, and I have never in my near two decades of playing have composed or played anything requiring more than 22 frets and am probably not alone in those regards.



I can't get up to the 24th fret on my guitars but what it does do is move frets 20-22 to a more reachable point further out from the body.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Aug 17, 2012)

I also wouldnt mind a 25.5in LP with a Floyd and 24 frets.


----------



## olsonuf (Aug 17, 2012)

With strat users I've always heard complaints about running into the lower point w/ your hand while doing wide stretches, but I've only recently started experiencing this myself. 

The ESP LTD EC-407 would be perfect if it had a floyd rose on it. I actually contacted them asking them to make one, and started a poll/thread here to try to garner support for it. (here's the link if you'd want an LP 24-fret 7-string w/ a floyd if they made one, please vote whether you'd buy one if you have a second: http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/se...u-buy-ec-407-floyd-rose-if-they-made-one.html).

It seems like the LP's single cutaway usually stays pretty well out of the way, near the 22nd fret, so a LP 7-string just like that but w/ a Floyd would solve all my problems.


----------



## Laxdude67 (Aug 17, 2012)

i never understood why on earth a 22 fret fretboard was chosen over a 24...

seems to kinda overlook...you know...the whole math thing with an octave...


----------



## olsonuf (Aug 17, 2012)

Laxdude67 said:


> i never understood why on earth a 22 fret fretboard was chosen over a 24...
> 
> seems to kinda overlook...you know...the whole math thing with an octave...



I've heard the reasoning "you can always bend up to the octave from 22." Which is fine....but what if I want to bend a whole step FROM 24? It's the same reason they offer 88-key keyboards, so you can access a wider range. 

Stopping at 22 never made any sense to me either.


----------



## ittoa666 (Aug 17, 2012)

Just wanted to post this.


----------



## olsonuf (Aug 17, 2012)

That is a pretty sweet guitar....even though it's missing a couple frets. 

But of course they'll build one for him!  I'd be looking for more of a stock model though; I'm not really into getting somebody's signature series guitar.


----------



## -42- (Aug 18, 2012)

Laxdude67 said:


> i never understood why on earth a 22 fret fretboard was chosen over a 24...
> 
> seems to kinda overlook...you know...the whole math thing with an octave...


It's about the neck pickup sound. There's a difference between 22 and 24 that people notice and care about.

Besides, let's be honest, most guitarists out there don't need 24 frets.


----------



## ittoa666 (Aug 18, 2012)

I would personally love 24, but an FR on an actual les paul sounds a bit wrong. I imagine it would rob a bit of tone.


----------



## Thep (Aug 18, 2012)

Why doesn't Rolls Royce make dune buggies?


----------



## Trespass (Aug 18, 2012)

snowblind56 said:


> I can't get up to the 24th fret on my guitars but what it does do is move frets 20-22 to a more reachable point further out from the body.



This is not how the phyisics work. Frets 23 and 24 are always going to extend out further from fret 22.

Heel design and where it meets the body is an issue independent of 22 vs. 24 frets. 




olsonuf said:


> I've heard the reasoning "you can always bend up to the octave from 22." Which is fine....but what if I want to bend a whole step FROM 24? It's the same reason they offer 88-key keyboards, so you can access a wider range.
> 
> Stopping at 22 never made any sense to me either.



Pianos do not complete the octave in either direction. The lowest note is an A, the highest note is a C, stopping mid octave at both ends.



Laxdude67 said:


> i never understood why on earth a 22 fret fretboard was chosen over a 24...
> 
> seems to kinda overlook...you know...the whole math thing with an octave...



The easiest answer guys, is that the music of it's time didn't demand or think highly of the sonic properties of that range of the guitar, especially noticeable because string gauges as low as .010 *were not invented yet*.

What was being performed in the 50s was jazz, en which you rarely go above the 15th fret of the high E string anyways, R&B -> accompaniment, and early rock -> accompaniment and simple melody.


----------



## Don Vito (Aug 18, 2012)

Laxdude67 said:


> i never understood why on earth a 22 fret fretboard was chosen over a 24...
> 
> seems to kinda overlook...you know...the whole math thing with an octave...


Eh, it depends. If I'm playing in E standard tuning, I might as well just use a 22 fret guitar, because I find the high E on the 24th fret to be far to shrill. Anything below E tuning and I will use a 24 fret guitar.

I understand what you are saying though.

edit: guy above me nailed it. different needs for different times.


----------



## McBrain (Aug 18, 2012)

Kramer Assault


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Aug 18, 2012)

Because the ToM makes up 80% of an LP's tone.


----------



## olsonuf (Aug 18, 2012)

Trespass said:


> Pianos do not complete the octave in either direction. The lowest note is an A, the highest note is a C, stopping mid octave at both ends.



Completing the octave wasn't so much the point w/ my analogy to the keyboard, just the wider range. On a guitar that extra whole step at least gives us 4 octaves from Low E to the E at the 24th fret on the 1st string. Every little bit counts.




Trespass said:


> The easiest answer guys, is that the music of it's time didn't demand or think highly of the sonic properties of that range of the guitar, especially noticeable because string gauges as low as .010 *were not invented yet*.
> 
> What was being performed in the 50s was jazz, en which you rarely go above the 15th fret of the high E string anyways, R&B -> accompaniment, and early rock -> accompaniment and simple melody.



Well put. It's just frustrating that the 50s are just about the last time they did something innovative and today's market is so flooded with a million replicas of the same 60-year-old specs.


----------



## Kodee_Kaos (Aug 18, 2012)

LP's are OLD MAN GUITARS. Might as well hang it up in the den next to your Cold-War era musket, and your cholesterol medications.

I fucking said it. And Im not taking it back. I do apologize in advance to my grandfather if he is reading this. Which he isn't, because old people can't use computers.


----------



## TankJon666 (Aug 18, 2012)

I never faff around that high up the neck anyway. For me LP's are the nuts when it comes to drop tuned riff's. Sound so thick and dark. Floyd's should go back to the 80s where they came from. I know it was invented in the late 70's so dont try that one on me


----------



## Kodee_Kaos (Aug 18, 2012)

TankJon666 said:


> Floyd's should go back to the 80s where they came from.



Hop in


----------



## Nag (Aug 18, 2012)

to sum up this thread :

Gibson releast 22-fret fixed bridge LPs cause they have always done so and people buy that, so they don't feel the need to try new models. Companies like ESP just ripped off from Gibson so they build with the same specs... that being said, both Gibson and ESP build 24-fretted LPs and Floyded LPs, I don't think they do both at the same time (maybe an LTD)


----------



## Jakke (Aug 18, 2012)

-42- said:


> It's about the neck pickup sound. There's a difference between 22 and 24 that people notice and care about.



Satch is one of them, that is why he used a rail neck on his first 24 fret guitar.


----------



## Murmel (Aug 18, 2012)

-42- said:


> It's about the neck pickup sound. There's a difference between 22 and 24 that people notice and care about.
> 
> Besides, let's be honest, most guitarists out there don't need 24 frets.


Let's not forget that 24 frets on Les Pauls look like crap


----------



## Jakke (Aug 18, 2012)

Murmel said:


> Let's not forget that 24 frets on Les Pauls look like crap



Indeed.


----------



## Bloody_Inferno (Aug 18, 2012)

Kodee_Kaos said:


> LP's are OLD MAN GUITARS. Might as well hang it up in the den next to your Cold-War era musket, and your cholesterol medications.
> 
> I fucking said it. And Im not taking it back. I do apologize in advance to my grandfather if he is reading this. Which he isn't, because old people can't use computers.



By that logic, Strats and Teles are also "OLD MAN GUITARS", and yet all three of them are still desired by players of all ages. Hell even the most well know players of this generation still want their signature axes based on these old man instruments. 



Murmel said:


> Let's not forget that 24 frets on Les Pauls look like crap



I disagree.











But hey, that's just you know, my opinion man. 

EDIT: Also, the Les Paul's sound (as a result of it's construction) is what makes the instrument so desirable to begin with. The 24.75 scale, the warmth of the neck humbucker with 22 frets, it's heavy as a log body, bridge, and other factors, all of that add to that iconic sound that's heard on the great albums. To change a lot of those will compromise the sound and most players don't want that. But speaking for myself, I like 24 frets and love locking trems so I don't mind a bit of blasphemy here and there. 

Also Les Pauls look best when slung low. They look weird on chest rockers...


----------



## Murmel (Aug 18, 2012)

^
Well, this is the internet after all. No one is entitled to their own opinion.


----------



## Jakke (Aug 18, 2012)

Bloody_Inferno said:


> Also Les Pauls look best when slung low. They look weird on chest rockers...



Agreed

And by SSO standards you have now committed one of the worst forms of heresy


----------



## Bloody_Inferno (Aug 18, 2012)

Jakke said:


> And by SSO standards you have now committed one of the worst forms of heresy



I've never followed any forum standards, plus I bought 2 of the new Ibanez X shapes. No turning back.


----------



## Jakke (Aug 18, 2012)

Bloody_Inferno said:


> I bought 2 of the new Ibanez X shapes. No turning back.



You're hardcore man
I usually don't tempt fate in more than hating djent and having my guitar low


----------



## Bloody_Inferno (Aug 18, 2012)

TankJon666 said:


> Floyd's should go back to the 80s where they came from.



Tell that to all the players who insist on a Floyd just to block them for maximum tuning stability.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Aug 18, 2012)

Bloody_Inferno said:


> Tell that to all the players who insist on a Floyd just to block them for maximum tuning stability.



Or some of us who actually use them. 

Plus, Floyds are comfy as fuck, especially when palm muting.

Edit: what you said makes me wonder why they never made a fixed FR. Well, they did, but it was for the speedloader system that no one used except for KK Downing.






And the speedloaders cant be used anymore because no one makes the required strings anymore.


----------



## Bloody_Inferno (Aug 18, 2012)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> Edit: what you said makes me wonder why they never made a fixed FR. Well, they did, but it was for the speedloader system that no one used except for KK Downing.



Ibanez made them:





















Of course these are only specialised bridges that won't fit anywhere else unless you build a guitar from the ground up that's routed specifically for them.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Aug 18, 2012)

Which is why I wish FR made something like Kahler did with their 7330, which apparently doesnt require much work to install.

Wammi World, Kahler Authorized Dealer- Products


----------



## olsonuf (Aug 18, 2012)

Thep said:


> Why doesn't Rolls Royce make dune buggies?



Because they don't know how to be adventurous, and are making a killing doing the same exact thing they always have done for over 60 years? 

Definitely a good analogy though.



Bloody_Inferno said:


> By that logic, Strats and Teles are also "OLD MAN GUITARS", and yet all three of them are still desired by players of all ages. Hell even the most well know players of this generation still want their signature axes based on these old man instruments.



You're right, but I really suspect that's because these "old man guitars" are still flooding the market. The first 3 to 6 pages of guitars in any catalog are still filled with strats and LP's, and in any store, there's a wall full of each.

They're a part of history, and they're good guitars, but many breakthroughs and major improvements have been made since those two classics hit the market. It seems Gibson and Fender just stand back with their fossil-guitars and are able to make a killing insisting that "what was good enough in the 50s is still the best." 



Bloody_Inferno said:


> Also Les Pauls look best when slung low. They look weird on chest rockers...



Yeah, unless you're totally amazing, then it doesn't really matter how you wear your guitar. It makes little sense to spend $3K on a guitar if you're gonna wear it so low that you can't even use decent technique and have to play nothing but power chords on it.


----------



## Murmel (Aug 18, 2012)

olsonuf said:


> You're right, but I really suspect that's because these "old man guitars" are still flooding the market. The first 3 to 6 pages of guitars in any catalog are still filled with strats and LP's, and in any store, there's a wall full of each.
> 
> They're a part of history, and they're good guitars, but many breakthroughs and major improvements have been made since those two classics hit the market. It seems Gibson and Fender just stand back with their fossil-guitars and are able to make a killing insisting that "what was good enough in the 50s is still the best."



The reason they still sell so well is because they ARE really good. They weren't good just in the past decades, they're still amazing, versatile, good sounding instruments. I can't find many things I'd like to improve on my strat, the general design is very good. A hard tail had been nice, but that's just personal preference.
Seriously, with a strat and a Les Paul you're fit for almost any type of situation that might happen.

This thread is just going to turn into another "Fender and Gibson suck because they're too old-fashioned"-threads. I knew it from the start.

I do agree however that it would be nice if they could make some different models out of old designs, like Floyd Rose equipped LP's etc. But if there isn't a market for it, and they've tried it, then there's not much you can say or do about it.


----------



## olsonuf (Aug 18, 2012)

Murmel said:


> This thread is just going to turn into another "Fender and Gibson suck because they're too old-fashioned"-threads. I knew it from the start.
> 
> I do agree however that it would be nice if they could make some different models out of old designs, like Floyd Rose equipped LP's etc. But if there isn't a market for it, and they've tried it, then there's not much you can say or do about it.



You're probably right. That really wasn't my intention, but I have to wonder... Maybe they don't sell b/c Gibson only offers ONE model like that and then treats it like an oddity. Almost all anyone ever sees is the standard 22-fret/ToM setup, stores rarely stock them, & then both Gibson and the stores sit back & say "we tried but it didn't sell!" I would call that:

1) Barely trying
2) wasting their investment w/ a half-assed effort

It's not going to sell when they continue to turn their noses up at the idea; it undermines any "trying" they've done to sell it.

ESP came along and offered an edgier version w/ Floyd option b/c there obviously IS a demand for this. 

One last thing about tone: I'm sure there is something to the "tone = ToM" claim, but there is very little in the way of tone that can't be compensated for w/ amp & effects settings, even w/ half-decent pickups. Tone is all too often blown out of proportion.


----------



## Murmel (Aug 18, 2012)

I think one of the reasons it worked for ESP was because they have a different clientele, ie mostly metal and rock players. A lot of metal and rock guitarists play Gibson too, but they don't make up the majority.

It would be interesting to see if a Gibson Studio version with a Floyd would sell, unless they've already tried that.


----------



## PyramidSmasher (Aug 18, 2012)

Gibson.com: Gibson Custom Les Paul Axcess Standard


----------



## olsonuf (Aug 18, 2012)

Maybe they also don't sell because they're like $4k when they do make one. If I'm gonna shell out 4 grand for a guitar, it wouldn't be just to be a fanboy.

Edit: of all the guitars I've ever played, I've noticed that price stops making a difference in quality beyond about $1,500. Anything priced above that without being a custom job is just a trophy with an expensive logo.


----------



## Greatoliver (Aug 18, 2012)

Also, how many of you would buy a super strat by Gibson? I think part of it is that there is a massive association with Gibson to the classic shapes: Vs, LPs, explorers etc. There is a history there, and people expect to see the same thing over and over again from Gibson. This is probably why more adventurous stuff hasn't worked that well, and maybe why themselves don't want to change the image they have.

Hell, if my RG had Gibson on the headstock, I would probably think it sounded darker and warmer than it really did. I think the models they make reinforce an attitude to their guitars which helps them sell guitars. They don't need to make different kinds of guitars, being a very popular brand, and it may even be damaging to start producing things that are radically different. And to people who like LPs, etc, adding a floyd and 2 frets _is_ radically different, considering how much discussion there is about the effect upon tone. Gibson are appealing to a stereotype as to maximise it - and it pays off.


----------



## BucketheadRules (Aug 18, 2012)

I drew this a few months ago, and I wish I could see/play it IRL:







It's a Les Paul, but with what I see as the ideal improvements - 

24 BIG frets 
Neck thru
Still with a fixed bridge (because fixed bridge is best bridge)
5-way selector to allow for more tonal variations
Headstock angled less far backwards to reduce chances of breakage
Contouring all over body for comfort
Weight relieved - with much of the chambering focused in the bottom half of the body for better balance (theoretically)
A variant on the Washburn Stephens Extended Cutaway for much better fret access
Comes in trans blue 

There would also be the option of a Floyd Rose, for the degenerate scum who are into that sort of thing. 



Broadly speaking that is, in my opinion, how the Les Paul should have evolved over the years.

As with everything though, it's just, like, my opinion, man.


----------



## -42- (Aug 18, 2012)

Murmel said:


> It would be interesting to see if a Gibson Studio version with a Floyd would sell, unless they've already tried that.



That's what these are: Gibson Limited Run Shred Les Paul Studio Electric Guitar | GuitarCenter


----------



## olsonuf (Aug 18, 2012)

Greatoliver said:


> I think the models they make reinforce an attitude to their guitars which helps them sell guitars. ..... Gibson are appealing to a stereotype as to maximise it - and it pays off.



Well said. From a business standpoint I have to admire how well they've done this, regardless of whether or not I share the aesthetic.

I'll just have to go w/ an ESP Custom Shop order, it seems. 

Thanks to everyone for your input; I have a clearer idea of why LP style guitars don't generally even offer these options. 

Oh well, I'm just in Gibson's target market. 




BucketheadRules said:


> I drew this a few months ago, and I wish I could see/play it IRL:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow that is a WONDERFUL guitar - I'd still want a floating trem - but I'd totally buy this guitar while I'm waiting for the trem version to come out. As you can probably tell from my avatar, I'm definitely into the Stephen's Extended Cutaway - every guitar should have this!


----------



## 3074326 (Aug 18, 2012)

olsonuf said:


> You're probably right. That really wasn't my intention, but I have to wonder... Maybe they don't sell b/c Gibson only offers ONE model like that and then treats it like an oddity. Almost all anyone ever sees is the standard 22-fret/ToM setup, stores rarely stock them, & then both Gibson and the stores sit back & say "we tried but it didn't sell!" I would call that:
> 
> 1) Barely trying
> 2) wasting their investment w/ a half-assed effort
> ...



They've tried many times. There isn't a huge demand _from Gibson players_ for Floyd-style bridges. We have one at work and it's the cleanest guitar on the wall because nobody ever touches it. It's not worth it for them. Gibson and ESP don't have the same customers. They compete to an extent, but they're so different in terms of feel/history/etc. that Gibson just doesn't have a huge Floyd market. 



olsonuf said:


> Maybe they also don't sell because they're like $4k when they do make one. If I'm gonna shell out 4 grand for a guitar, it wouldn't be just to be a fanboy.



Gibson Shred Les Paul Studio with Hardshell Case | Sam Ash Music 1-800-4-SAMASH


----------



## MstrH (Aug 19, 2012)

olsonuf said:


> One last thing about tone: I'm sure there is something to the "tone = ToM" claim, but there is very little in the way of tone that can't be compensated for w/ amp & effects settings, even w/ half-decent pickups. Tone is all too often blown out of proportion.


----------



## DslDwg (Aug 19, 2012)

What I notice is that people that actually buy Gibson Les Pauls want those classic features. 22 frets, 24.75 scale, hard tail, set neck. If you vary any of those features you may gain a few customers but probably lose many more. 

Guys over on the Warmoth board have built some gorgeous Les Paul shaped guitars from the Warmoth parts. The couple that have tried to show them off on the Gibson boards just get torn to pieces. The purists who make up the majority of the buyers of the Gibson don't like to change and Gibson gives them what they want. As the saying goes they know where their bread is buttered.


----------



## Murmel (Aug 19, 2012)

-42- said:


> That's what these are: Gibson Limited Run Shred Les Paul Studio Electric Guitar | GuitarCenter


Didn't know about these, I don't think they're available in Europe. At least they aren't on Thomann, and if they aren't on Thomann they don't exist in my eyes


----------



## olsonuf (Aug 19, 2012)

3074326 said:


> They've tried many times.



Again, I'd call that "barely trying" many times. Every time they do it it's been in the same ineffective, self-defeating way, with one model at a time. Again, I understand that's just the aesthetic they've created and that continues to work for them, and people like it. Mostly because of the aesthetic, but partially because people are conditioned to look for those traits in a Les Paul thanks to Gibson.

The one you linked to finally has a reasonable price tag. (still missing 2 frets though!) 

You're right though, it's just a different target market, and Gibson apparently isn't targeting players like me. Which sucks really, because I'd really like to enjoy a Les Paul but I want these features so I guess it's not happening. 

For me it has to have BOTH 24 frets and a floyd. Preferably neck-thru also, although I've gotten slightly less militant about that one.


----------



## fwd0120 (Aug 19, 2012)

Why get a LP with those features when you could just get an RG?  
Check out my sig.


----------



## McBrain (Aug 19, 2012)

fwd0120 said:


> Why get a LP with those features when you could just get an RG?
> Check out my sig.
> 
> "basically by saying "a rg neck will look awesome on an sg body" your saying " megan fox's head would look great on drew cary's body."" - aslsmm



I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but...






I would still prefer Megan Fox's head on her own body, though.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Aug 19, 2012)

fwd0120 said:


> Why get a LP with those features when you could just get an RG?
> Check out my sig.



Because most of the time, RGs are Basswood with a 25.5 maple bolt on neck and Les Paums are mahogany/maple with a 24.7in mahogany set neck. Put on a FR and 24 frets on the LP and you still get those core features.

Also, I think a Les Paul body "fits" me better compared to the RG.


----------



## InfinityCollision (Aug 19, 2012)

MstrH said:


> Before amplification, guitars were more of an accompaniment type of instrument, they didn't need a full two octave range.


Four octaves, if we're talking the full fretted range. On that note, many still don't. Going that high is rare outside of the shred-solo community. Going lower is still niche over half a century since its introduction to the contemporary world.



> Still, I can't believe how Fender and Gibson can thrive by continually photo copying their past ad nauseum.


Guitar players are a pretty traditional bunch as a whole, though this can be easy to forget when you're on a forum dominated by seven+ string guitarists playing some form of rock or metal. There may also be a limit to what can reasonably be done in terms of overall shapes due to simple ergonomics. Gibson and Fender have pretty much cornered the market on the distillations of many such shapes and appeal to a broad audience in doing so.


----------



## DslDwg (Aug 20, 2012)

MstrH said:


> Still, I can't believe how Fender and Gibson can thrive by continually photo copying their past ad nauseum.



I understand your point I'm just curious should Gibson or Fender try to out Ibanez, Ibanez? 

Speaking of which how about Ibanez - huge catalog but when it comes down to it 

Basswood Bodies
Black
Maple / Bolt on Necks
Rosewood F/B's
Lots of Middle Pick-ups
Craptastic Pick-ups
25.5" Scales. 

I know there are exceptions - but there are for Gibson and Fender as well. 

Just sayin' if I want an Ibanez with an all mahogany neck - thru and an ebony board with 24.75" scale how many options do I have?


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Aug 20, 2012)

DslDwg said:


> Just sayin' if I want an Ibanez with an all mahogany neck - thru and an ebony board with 24.75" scale how many options do I have?



If you dont mind the lack of ebony, you have four. 

Ibanez.com | Electric Guitars | ART


----------



## Murmel (Aug 20, 2012)

It's also super easy to mod Fenders, especially strats. So you can make it sound pretty much however you want. Finding replacement bodies and necks isn't hard either, and usually not very expensive.


----------



## Jakke (Aug 20, 2012)

Quiet strat-boy

We don't want no commie guitars here...














They are easy to mod though


----------



## Murmel (Aug 20, 2012)

Once you go strat you never go back.

I used to hate them, now I can't play anything else


----------



## Jakke (Aug 20, 2012)

A strat is on my to-get list


----------



## DslDwg (Aug 20, 2012)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> If you dont mind the lack of ebony, you have four.
> 
> Ibanez.com | Electric Guitars | ART



I should have specified I wanted that in a double cutaway. 

Just trying to make the point that each guitar manufacturer has it's go to products. It's what buyers expect from them and if they are successful why go too far out of their comfort zone because a handful of guys on a forum want something different. 

I've seen Sterling Ball do it a couple of times on the EBMM forum. A group of guys in a thread will be saying how they want this option or that option that is not currently in a the catalog. He will explain how expensive it is to change his manufacturing process but that if people really want it that he will do it. So then he'll challenge that if 25 guys commit or 50 guys or whatever that he will build what they are asking for. The end result is he usually gets 2 definates and 3 maybes instead of the 50 that were all saying how they would buy one in a second if it were available. 

Just for fun go to the Gibson Forum and tell them that Gibson President has decided all Les Pauls from now on will be bolt-ons made from Basswood with Floyds and 24 fret necks with a 25.5" scale. Gibson would probably get burned to the ground by an angry mob the next day.


----------



## Murmel (Aug 21, 2012)

DslDwg said:


> Just for fun go to the Gibson Forum and tell them that Gibson President has decided all Les Pauls from now on will be bolt-ons made from Basswood with Floyds and 24 fret necks with a 25.5" scale. Gibson would probably get burned to the ground by an angry mob the next day.



Gibson should so fucking pull this as an April Fool's next year. I would piss my pants laughing


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Aug 21, 2012)

*Why 22 frets?*
With 22 frets, the neck pickup captures the vibrations at the octave, leading to a subjective benefit in tone.

*Why tune-o-matic?*
Floyds, obviously a later innovation than the Les Paul, require removal of mass from the body of the guitar, subjectively compromising tone. Also, the 14 degree back angle of the headstock would have to be considered when installing the locking nut, to maintain string break angle.

I have a 24 fret handmade custom Les Paul, made by an English luthier and a Gibson Les Paul Deluxe (mini-humbuckers) from the early 70's. Very physical instruments with a good sound for low gain styles. To modify them for proper music would ruin their value. 

Also, the headstocks come off pretty easily, due to the back angle of the headstock, so they require serious strap locks and consideration during performances and transportation.


----------



## TonyFlyingSquirrel (Aug 22, 2012)

If you look in the Gallery at the Warmoth site, someone also made a Baritone LP with a Floyd. It's a 28 5/8" scale with 24 frets. No worry about neck dive there, the body, even chambered is heavy enough to compensate. Just saying, thought someone might be interested.

I think the EC-1000FR is probably the most practical commercial offering at this time.


----------



## MetalBuddah (Aug 22, 2012)

Gibson just has a reputation of making a very solid guitar that works well across the board. Sure, Les Pauls may not have all the features that more "modern" guitar have...but you still see so many "modern" artists using them because the guitars have an almost legendary reputation in the history of the production guitar world and the guitars just do their job well. At least Gibson has recently been trying a bunch of new things and also new minor upgrades like neck profile, coil taps, etc. Who knows, maybe one of their floyd models will sell very well and then they will realize that there is a market that they have yet to tap. 

Why fix it if it ain't broken?

Also...BucketheadRules, those sketches are awesome. I would love to see that from Gibson one day.


----------



## ZXIIIT (Aug 22, 2012)

I would not mind having an actual Gibson Les Paul with 24 frets, maple fretboard, non-weight relieved body, 25.5" scale, Tune-o-matic with strings through body and white finish with matching headstock.

I've never seen Gibson do that at once.


----------

