GIBSON L6S or Midnight Special series...

bytemare

Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
39
Reaction score
23
For me these frets are really low, and my other one is exactly the same. I've tried a few other and they have frets like this. Well, for me they are very low after playing my other guitars.
 

Attachments

moreles

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2011
Messages
4,693
Reaction score
3,454
No thanks. I think they were designed as less-expensive alternative Gibsons, and not conceived for any tonal or other musical purpose. They did the job and some people liked them for that. The were rather bright and harsh, and visually looked like a clumsy version of a LP, and I don't know anyone for whom a L6 was a dream guitar. Nostalgia and the desire to hav e something cheap but supposedlty great is driving the mini-revival that is unlikely to last long, given the mediocrity of the guitar itself. It's ideal for some, and not ideal for most.
 

dspelman

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
11,383
Reaction score
7,959
No thanks. I think they were designed as less-expensive alternative Gibsons, and not conceived for any tonal or other musical purpose. They did the job and some people liked them for that. The were rather bright and harsh, and visually looked like a clumsy version of a LP, and I don't know anyone for whom a L6 was a dream guitar. Nostalgia and the desire to hav e something cheap but supposedlty great is driving the mini-revival that is unlikely to last long, given the mediocrity of the guitar itself. It's ideal for some, and not ideal for most.
Your assessment is, of course, pretty far out of alignment with the historical record on these guitars. The brief Gibson gave Bill Lawrence was for a guitar that would compete with Fender and that would have a very different tonal balance than the mainstream Gibsons of the day. The guitar that Lawrence envisioned and designed was not the guitar that Gibson execs eventually produced, but some of the original concept made it through. It was designed to be brighter than the usual humbucker-equipped guitar (as are Fenders of the era), which may have been part of the reason it was built of maple and not mahogany. The original design was for a double cutaway guitar and the tonal system was different from what eventually made it onto the guitar. I have to agree that the end product looked like a road-killed LP, but upper fret access on the L6S is miles better than on any LP.

Bear in mind that the LP was discontinued once, and was scheduled to be discontinued again because it, too, was not a dream guitar for many at the time, either. I have no idea if there's actually any "mini-revival" for these guitars, nor can I speak for anyone else's motivation for buying one. I didn't have any nostalgia for this guitar, nor was I driven by the convoluted mentality you've assumed. I like and appreciate mine.
 

moreles

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2011
Messages
4,693
Reaction score
3,454
Your assessment is, of course, pretty far out of alignment with the historical record on these guitars.
I don't think so. I said they were designed to be cheap, and that's the price poinbt at which they came in, and what "competing with Fender" meant, to no small degree. I'm sure you're right about the original design being more aspirational, but if it was not fully-realized, then I'm sure the reason was -- price. I've had a few guitars with Bill Lawrence pickups and on the broad scale and over time there are a fair number of clunkers mixed in with his successes. I think the limited success of the L6S speaks for itself.
 


Latest Threads



Top