Which do you think are the most important tonal qualities of a good Les Paul?

[Frankyu]

I have had quite a few from all periods between the 60s and now and it was a long journey but I finally narrowed down what tonal qualities are a must-have in a Les Paul to be a good sounding one for me. These are certainly not universal truths so I'm interested what are your preferences compared to mine. This is not a specifically Historic-related question but I think this is a good enough place to begin the discussion.
What I experienced in this 15 years of comparing Les Pauls after Les Pauls, a new one traded for another on almost a monthly basis are the following:
- Acoustic and electrified tone go hand-in-hand. A Les Paul must have the below mentioned qualities when you strum it sitting on your porch without an amp. If there is no attack or sustain on a certain area of the neck, you can put any Throbaks or original PAFs in it, it won't magically put it there into the wood.
- Weight doesn't matter as much as it is highlighted on forums in the past 10 years or so. It's not a rule that a good LP must be under 9 lbs to sound "right" regardless of original Bursts' documented weight range. It was 'the more heavy the better' in the 80s and now the trend is the complete opposite on forums. It's simply BS.
- A good Les Paul must have a percussive fast-responding low-end. The palm mutes should sound tight and punchy instead of flabby and soft through a cranked Plexi.
- Many Les Pauls have a weaker sounding low-E and high-E compared to the other strings acoustically. It's a deal breaker.
- Also, many of the very light and extremely resonant Les Pauls tend to have a soft, rubbery tone. On the other hand, old ones or some of the guitars made honestly from old wood can be very light, extremely resonant yet still firm, tight and bright sounding with a Telecaster kinda low-end response.
- From more current ones, oftentimes it's the heavier 9.5-10lbs Les Pauls that have this Tele-like response in the lows and the bright cutting highs. I have an assumption that the light mahogany of the last few decades do not sound like the light mahogany of the 50s. Heavier mahogany strangely can sound closer in some instances.
- The tone must have a "dry" woody quality overall with lots of presence. It's the opposite of the soft, rubbery tone that I mentioned.
- Whatever you do some Les Pauls won't feedback correctly through a cranked amp, you can fight all you want, the notes will just die instead of turning into that desired blooming feedback effortlessly. Those LPs aren't good ones.
- If a Les Paul is acoustically loud and resonant that is the icing on the cake but never the deciding factor.
These are just my experiences and my own preferences. I have to emphasize that there are two ways I play my Les Pauls. I play them either through a cranked tube amp (69 JMP) with no effects that could mask the sound or I play them acoustically because I just can't ever get bored of hearing the natural voice of that sweet Honduras mahogany, maple and rosewood. Playing them this way they always reveal their secrets. Through a cranked Plexi with no effects there is nowhere to hide for a guitar (nor the player), the true quality will come trough either shining or dull and forgettable. As strange as it is, it's exactly the same thing playing them acoustically.
Anyway, I freakin' love Les Pauls!

Frank

 

[Brazilnut]

Wow, that was quite an ode to the tones of a Les Paul guitar. Can't really argue with anything you said.
People who know have said on this forum that the lighter, more resonant wood at the top of a South American mahogany tree is more expensive and harder to get these days, and that Gibson uses more wood closer to the base of the tree, where it is denser. They save the really good stuff for the lucrative Custom Shop guitars. Maybe that might have something to do with tone as well as weight.

 

[AJK1]

It’s gotta sound good…

 

[68 Greenback]

Interesting post.
And that’s how I play my Les Paul Specials…..either acoustically or straight into a crunching stock 71 1987/68 Greenback halfstack.

 

[Uncle Jesse]

I'm definitely not your average Les Paul player. I don't like a lot of gain I play almost exclusively clean. Only occasionally do I approach edge of breakup tones. I rarely use the bridge pickup as well. I want a neck pickup that remains clear and sweet. So a good Custombucker has been the perfect neck pickup for me. Of course, they vary but the best ones for me are big and warm and bright. I cannot stand a muddy or wooly neck pickup.

I will only really consider a LP at 8.5lbs or less because I just won't care to sling a heavier guitar on stage for several hours. Maybe those heavier ones can sound as good as the lighter ones but I generally don't play them so I don't know.

 

[BGK529]

Thats was quite a list I appreciate u sharing.. That being said, my #1 2005 Gibson Standard (SD Antiquities) has been the least acoustically sounding/resonant/sound projecting Les Paul that Ive owned and plugged in, it is the best Les Paul that Ive ever played through an amp and Ive owned quite a few Standards. Some were quite loud and resonant like the Corsa I owned but plugged into the amp, it didnt come close to my #1.. I also had a 70 Greco that was heavy as a boat anchor (pancake style) and was dead as a door nail acoustically, plugged in had thar awesome Pagey twang (old Dimarzio pickups) . Then a few LPs that were so freaking bright sounding that were loud but pingy sounding or as the the word that I used in a previous post that a few people had fun with was chingy; I couldn't get those fiddles to sound good no matter what pickups or amp settings I dialed in

 

[CoolRene]

I’ve been playing guitars for more than 50 years. Dozens of brands, models, etc. I have found my Holy Grail 6 years ago:
59’ CS LP reissue. Solid but light mahogany body (8.25 lbs), 59’ carve neck, dark rosewood board, CustomBuckers unpotted pickups, bumblebee caps.
The guitar plays like a dream, very resonant acoustically and articulate when plugged in. You can hear the overtones and harmonics ringing in a very nice way.
Plus it’s got a beautiful finish over a nicely flamed top (pic of my avatar).
It has replaced a ‘69 Deluxe of the Norlin era I had kept for 48 years. It was nice but far too heavy (10.5 lbs) and a cumbersome neck profile I never really got used to.

 

[bluesoul]

I never really think about what a guitar (Les Paul) needs to sound like or any preconceived ideas about what a guitar must have or not have. Each guitar is going to be different and offer something another doesn't. A good reason to own several! Plug in in and play....it either sounds great or gets sold!
Way too much for me to process ...hell I am still racking my brain to try and figure out why beer doesn't come in a 7 pack. Who wouldn't want "one more"?

 

[martin H]

This will, I'm sure, elicit a lot of opinions, but I suspect what it will show is that there are as many opinions as there are possible variations in tone. To me, the important tonal qualities of a Les Paul are Paul are going to vary substantially depending on the style of music you're playing, and even more based on personal taste.

I'd guess most of us have had that awkward moment when a friend suggests you play their new favorite instrument that 'sounds and feels incredible" and the sound or feel is just blah to you. "Yea ... errr.... that's cool! its always great to find an instrument you really like."

For my 10c, I'm pretty happy with the tone of my 72 deluxe (pancake body) that was routed and fitted with 70s Gibson humbuckers some time before I got it in 82. it has that slightly nasal "singing" quality on the bridge pickup.

 

[bluesoul]

To me, the important tonal qualities of a Les Paul are Paul are going to vary substantially depending on the style of music you're playing, and even more based on personal taste.

And to add to that: Different rigs...different amps. What sounds great though a Marshall might not work as well through a BF Fender.

 

[Peter M]

Which do you think are the most important tonal qualities of a good Les Paul?

​

My hands.

Seriously, I can make any properly functioning Les Paul sound the way I want it to.

Feel is a different story. Those that don't feel right to me don't get to stay.

 

[solidwalnut]

I would never argue with your list, and quite agree with much of it. But there is just no substitute for the eternal chase of tone than to say: tone is in the fingers. A great player can make any guitar sing.
I practice "unplugged." I actually think that this is your best teacher for electric work. You can actually hear how you sound as a player.

I'm quite happy with the resonance I get with my '79 solid walnut The Paul.

 

[Shelkonnery]

I just love how you can dial some sweet low end with the bridge pickup.
Like sometimes I need to double check the switch to make sure I'm still in treble position.

 

[trevenarj]

For me, the telling aspect of a Les Paul is how it sounds with both pickups engaged through a clean amp; no distortion. I’m looking for that sparkle similar to Bloomfield’s tone on Super Session.

 

[Dog-ear90]

I have to disagree on one point, weight. I've played hundreds of Les Pauls and I've never played a boat anchor LP that sounded good. They may have had sustain but lacked in so many other areas. I just recently picked up a Junior (7.1 lb) and a Special (7.13 lb) and they are undoubtedly the most all around great sounding non-maple capped LPs I've ever played; acoustically loud and sustains, with all kinds of character.

There is a reason acoustic guitars are light and are braced to keep the top as light as possible; the wood needs to vibrate. Excess weight kills any chance of "bloom". All of the above is my opinion.

 

[wildhawk1]

​

My hands.

Seriously, I can make any properly functioning Les Paul sound the way I want it to.

Truth has been spoken.

It's not the gear. It's the player. Always.

 

[GBLEV]

I have had quite a few from all periods between the 60s and now and it was a long journey but I finally narrowed down what tonal qualities are a must-have in a Les Paul to be a good sounding one for me. These are certainly not universal truths so I'm interested what are your preferences compared to mine. This is not a specifically Historic-related question but I think this is a good enough place to begin the discussion.
What I experienced in this 15 years of comparing Les Pauls after Les Pauls, a new one traded for another on almost a monthly basis are the following:
- Acoustic and electrified tone go hand-in-hand. A Les Paul must have the below mentioned qualities when you strum it sitting on your porch without an amp. If there is no attack or sustain on a certain area of the neck, you can put any Throbaks or original PAFs in it, it won't magically put it there into the wood.
- Weight doesn't matter as much as it is highlighted on forums in the past 10 years or so. It's not a rule that a good LP must be under 9 lbs to sound "right" regardless of original Bursts' documented weight range. It was 'the more heavy the better' in the 80s and now the trend is the complete opposite on forums. It's simply BS.
- A good Les Paul must have a percussive fast-responding low-end. The palm mutes should sound tight and punchy instead of flabby and soft through a cranked Plexi.
- Many Les Pauls have a weaker sounding low-E and high-E compared to the other strings acoustically. It's a deal breaker.
- Also, many of the very light and extremely resonant Les Pauls tend to have a soft, rubbery tone. On the other hand, old ones or some of the guitars made honestly from old wood can be very light, extremely resonant yet still firm, tight and bright sounding with a Telecaster kinda low-end response.
- From more current ones, oftentimes it's the heavier 9.5-10lbs Les Pauls that have this Tele-like response in the lows and the bright cutting highs. I have an assumption that the light mahogany of the last few decades do not sound like the light mahogany of the 50s. Heavier mahogany strangely can sound closer in some instances.
- The tone must have a "dry" woody quality overall with lots of presence. It's the opposite of the soft, rubbery tone that I mentioned.
- Whatever you do some Les Pauls won't feedback correctly through a cranked amp, you can fight all you want, the notes will just die instead of turning into that desired blooming feedback effortlessly. Those LPs aren't good ones.
- If a Les Paul is acoustically loud and resonant that is the icing on the cake but never the deciding factor.
These are just my experiences and my own preferences. I have to emphasize that there are two ways I play my Les Pauls. I play them either through a cranked tube amp (69 JMP) with no effects that could mask the sound or I play them acoustically because I just can't ever get bored of hearing the natural voice of that sweet Honduras mahogany, maple and rosewood. Playing them this way they always reveal their secrets. Through a cranked Plexi with no effects there is nowhere to hide for a guitar (nor the player), the true quality will come trough either shining or dull and forgettable. As strange as it is, it's exactly the same thing playing them acoustically.
Anyway, I freakin' love Les Pauls!

Frank

I think you might miss out on some good Les Pauls due to some of these things you mentioned can corrected with a proper setup. I agree with some of what you said, though.

 

[gball]

Wow, that was quite an ode to the tones of a Les Paul guitar. Can't really argue with anything you said.
People who know have said on this forum that the lighter, more resonant wood at the top of a South American mahogany tree is more expensive and harder to get these days, and that Gibson uses more wood closer to the base of the tree, where it is denser. They save the really good stuff for the lucrative Custom Shop guitars. Maybe that might have something to do with tone as well as weight.

The weight debate will never die and I think there are is a lot of "internet wisdom" surrounding it. There's a great thread in the Norlin section:

Next time they tell ya about "old growth" wood......

It's always puzzled me after learning more and buying some mahogany, the notion of the "Golden Era" using "old growth" mahogany. Older growth trees tend to produce darker, heavier, and more durable lumber than plantation-grown stock. http://www.wood-database.com/honduran-mahogany/ It's no...

www.mylespaul.com

And although I wasn't able to find it there is an older thread here somewhere where an ex-Gibson employee that was there in the transition period is quite adamant that the heavier Norlin guitars were made with what was considerd superior wood and no corners were cut. Yes, it was partly consumer-driven at the time, as we the buyers wanted and preferred the heavier guitars (its no conincidence that the Customs from the era tend to be heavier than other models) but they didn't burn all the wood they had one day and start over with inferior stock.

My personal experience has been that heavier Les Pauls sound better: more balanced tonally, better sustain, more punch when you dig in and a tighter low end. I seek out heavier ones for these reasons, but I also prefer how they feel hanging around my neck.

 

[Brazilnut]

Well, if weight equals tone, then the 70s models are, all else being equal, tonally the best.
And if you prefer 10 lbs+ hanging off your shoulder, then my hat is off to you. A little pain for tonal gain is much to be admired!

 

[DECEMBER333111]

I do a lot of clean palm-muting and only a Les Paul sounds the way I need that to. The Gibson LP Special Tribute Raven and the LP Studio Gothic both have that punchy, percussive sound. The Epiphone LP Muse sounds like an LP but it's muddy. No sustain. The Gibsons are so much more resonant. The neck feels better and the fretboard is wider. The narrow fretboard on the Epi gives me problems with muting adjacent strings when fretting chords.
I need my LPs to be all black and non-glossy. I prefer the look of the Gothic but since I play standing for 4+ hours a day, I prefer the Raven (7.7lbs). Same sound, lighter on the shoulders. It just doesn't have that nice moon & star inlay.
Put ceramic EMGs in it and you get that sound nice and clear, articulate and detailed, the punch is unparalleled. My amp is excessively middy so I put a variable mid control in the guitar to cut the muddy mids at the source.
And I need heavy strings so they're not all bendy and twangy. I use 54 38 28 20w 15 11 in drop-D, A=432Hz.