Body wood affects tone

Three-ColourSunburst

Sassafras said:

@Three-ColourSunburst ;;
Can you explain why Gibson decided to put a maple cap on the first Les Pauls?
And don't say aesthetics because they were goldtops originally.

Probably because they weren't physicists and over-extended what they knew about acoustic instruments to their new solid-body guitar.

octatonic

Three-ColourSunburst said:

a solid-wood boy. 

Three-ColourSunburst

octatonic said:

Three-ColourSunburst said:

a solid-wood boy. 

The dreaded typo!

EricTheWeary

Sassafras said:

@Three-ColourSunburst ;
Can you explain why Gibson decided to put a maple cap on the first Les Pauls?
And don't say aesthetics because they were goldtops originally.

That was discussed about ten pages ago (   ) - seems to be that nobody quite knows. What seems to have happened is that Gibson were going to launch the Les Paul in a range of finishes that would show off the maple but went with gold only in the end. IIRC the next batch of Les Pauls were the Customs that had mahogany tops.
That's not to say that maple wasn't chosen for it's sonic qualities but it seems just as likely to have been that's what they'd ordered and decided to use them up even though they were painted gold. 

Sassafras

EricTheWeary said:

Sassafras said:

@Three-ColourSunburst ;
Can you explain why Gibson decided to put a maple cap on the first Les Pauls?
And don't say aesthetics because they were goldtops originally.

That was discussed about ten pages ago (   ) - seems to be that nobody quite knows. What seems to have happened is that Gibson were going to launch the Les Paul in a range of finishes that would show off the maple but went with gold only in the end. IIRC the next batch of Les Pauls were the Customs that had mahogany tops.
That's not to say that maple wasn't chosen for it's sonic qualities but it seems just as likely to have been that's what they'd ordered and decided to use them up even though they were painted gold. 

I thought it probably had but 3colourburst isn't the only one who's allowed to be repetitive and you can't expect me to remember something that was mentioned 10 pages ago and anyway, does anyone really read all this boring stuff?
It's all sapped my powers of concentration.
I'm only here because the Drew/Emp referendum thread is a bit slow at the moment.

EricTheWeary

Sassafras said:

EricTheWeary said:

Sassafras said:

@Three-ColourSunburst ;
Can you explain why Gibson decided to put a maple cap on the first Les Pauls?
And don't say aesthetics because they were goldtops originally.

That was discussed about ten pages ago (   ) - seems to be that nobody quite knows. What seems to have happened is that Gibson were going to launch the Les Paul in a range of finishes that would show off the maple but went with gold only in the end. IIRC the next batch of Les Pauls were the Customs that had mahogany tops.
That's not to say that maple wasn't chosen for it's sonic qualities but it seems just as likely to have been that's what they'd ordered and decided to use them up even though they were painted gold. 

I thought it probably had but 3colourburst isn't the only one who's allowed to be repetitive and you can't expect me to remember something that was mentioned 10 pages ago and anyway, does anyone really read all this boring stuff?
It's all sapped my powers of concentration.
I'm only here because the Drew/Emp referendum thread is a bit slow at the moment.

I haven't read most of it, the meaning of life might be buried in this Discussion somewhere but it would pass me by. 

koneguitarist

WezV said:

It proves the nighthawk is a confused guitar

not sure many of us could positively ID that one from sound alone.

It does make the test a bit "Name a Hairy Dog?"

Point was, after listening to all the strats none could tell when I put a Gibson guitar in there replicating a strat sound with wrong pickups, wrong wood, wrongs scale,no trem, how different would guitar have to be not to know it wasn't a strat? 

koneguitarist

Sassafras said:

koneguitarist said:

After we had all played them and said which we preferred etc, I said ok, stand behind door and tell me which strat I am using? 4 experienced 

guitarists were standing behind door, only one said he didn't know, the others all picked different guitars, so someone was bound to be right, stands to reason. No one got it right as when they walked back in I was playing a Gibson Nighthawk.

They couldn't have been all that experienced if they couldn't tell the difference between a Fender and a Gibson.

I cheated and fully admit it, they heard what they expected to hear, like us all. 
How many of us saw all those pics of Jimmy Page with a Les Paul and were amazed he didn't use  it on a lot of songs? I was taken in I admit it. David Gilmour with Brick in the wall, surely all these experienced ears out there could tell a strat from a les paul?

Rabs

koneguitarist said:

WezV said:

It proves the nighthawk is a confused guitar

not sure many of us could positively ID that one from sound alone.

It does make the test a bit "Name a Hairy Dog?"

Point was, after listening to all the strats none could tell when I put a Gibson guitar in there replicating a strat sound with wrong pickups, wrong wood, wrongs scale,no trem, how different would guitar have to be not to know it wasn't a strat? 

Yeah but just calling it a Gibson is a bit misleading in itself as Wez says..  The Nighthawk is not a normal Gibson..   What sort of pickups did it have? 

https://i.imgur.com/F8dyJ8M.jpg

I bet if you had done the same thing and used a Les Paul Standard instead of the Nighthawk everyone would have got it right.

WezV

Rabs said:

koneguitarist said:

WezV said:

It proves the nighthawk is a confused guitar

not sure many of us could positively ID that one from sound alone.

It does make the test a bit "Name a Hairy Dog?"

Point was, after listening to all the strats none could tell when I put a Gibson guitar in there replicating a strat sound with wrong pickups, wrong wood, wrongs scale,no trem, how different would guitar have to be not to know it wasn't a strat? 

Yeah but just calling it a Gibson is a bit misleading in itself as Wez says..  The Nighthawk is not a normal Gibson..   What sort of pickups did it have? 

https://i.imgur.com/F8dyJ8M.jpg

I bet if you had done the same thing and used a Les Paul Standard instead of the Nighthawk everyone would have got it right.

that's what i was about to type


The nighthawk will have confused any bunch of guitarists because its not quite gibsony and not quite fendery, at least in the traditional guise shown above


fairly sure most would have caught on to  your trick if you had gone straight for a les paul.

WezV

Even wikipedia got this one right

With its set neck and maple-capped mahogany body, the Nighthawk is structurally and aesthetically a Gibson, but certain key aspects of its design take it into Fender territory. The slanted bridge humbucker has less gain than the regular Gibson humbucker and has a bright, sharp tone which in single-coil mode is similar to that of Fender's Telecasters and Stratocasters. The mini-humbucker neck pickup has a mellower and warmer tone than the bright bridge pickup, and in single-coil mode is also similar to the sound of the neck pickup in a Stratocaster. The middle pickup (available as an option) is a single-coil design similar to the middle pickup of the Stratocaster. The Nighthawk's scale length (the distance from the nut to the bridge) is Fender's standard 25½" rather than Gibson's usual 24¾". This important difference, which requires greater tension for a given gauge of strings, makes the guitar feel more like a Fender from a playing perspective and adds to the tonal similarities. The Nighthawk's body is closer in mass to a Fender guitar than a typical Gibson Les Paul, and the string-through-body bridge is similar to that of the Telecaster.

bacchanalian

koneguitarist said:

Sassafras said:

koneguitarist said:

After we had all played them and said which we preferred etc, I said ok, stand behind door and tell me which strat I am using? 4 experienced 

guitarists were standing behind door, only one said he didn't know, the others all picked different guitars, so someone was bound to be right, stands to reason. No one got it right as when they walked back in I was playing a Gibson Nighthawk.

They couldn't have been all that experienced if they couldn't tell the difference between a Fender and a Gibson.

I cheated and fully admit it, they heard what they expected to hear, like us all. 
How many of us saw all those pics of Jimmy Page with a Les Paul and were amazed he didn't use  it on a lot of songs? I was taken in I admit it. David Gilmour with Brick in the wall, surely all these experienced ears out there could tell a strat from a les paul?

Much as I hate adding to this thread.  I have to disagree about Jimmy Page and the telecaster.
I honestly thought it was well known that Jim used a telecaster extensively and really only started the Les Paul for feedback reasons and to thicken his live sound up a bit.

professorben

bacchanalian said:

koneguitarist said:

Sassafras said:

koneguitarist said:

After we had all played them and said which we preferred etc, I said ok, stand behind door and tell me which strat I am using? 4 experienced 

guitarists were standing behind door, only one said he didn't know, the others all picked different guitars, so someone was bound to be right, stands to reason. No one got it right as when they walked back in I was playing a Gibson Nighthawk.

They couldn't have been all that experienced if they couldn't tell the difference between a Fender and a Gibson.

I cheated and fully admit it, they heard what they expected to hear, like us all. 
How many of us saw all those pics of Jimmy Page with a Les Paul and were amazed he didn't use  it on a lot of songs? I was taken in I admit it. David Gilmour with Brick in the wall, surely all these experienced ears out there could tell a strat from a les paul?

Much as I hate adding to this thread.  I have to disagree about Jimmy Page and the telecaster.
I honestly thought it was well known that Jim used a telecaster extensively and really only started the Les Paul for feedback reasons and to thicken his live sound up a bit.

It is these days common knowledge but I remember pub (remember those?) discussions in the early 90's about classic les Paul tones and stairway was often cited as such. 

Rabs

bacchanalian said:

koneguitarist said:

Sassafras said:

koneguitarist said:

After we had all played them and said which we preferred etc, I said ok, stand behind door and tell me which strat I am using? 4 experienced 

guitarists were standing behind door, only one said he didn't know, the others all picked different guitars, so someone was bound to be right, stands to reason. No one got it right as when they walked back in I was playing a Gibson Nighthawk.

They couldn't have been all that experienced if they couldn't tell the difference between a Fender and a Gibson.

I cheated and fully admit it, they heard what they expected to hear, like us all. 
How many of us saw all those pics of Jimmy Page with a Les Paul and were amazed he didn't use  it on a lot of songs? I was taken in I admit it. David Gilmour with Brick in the wall, surely all these experienced ears out there could tell a strat from a les paul?

Much as I hate adding to this thread.  I have to disagree about Jimmy Page and the telecaster.
I honestly thought it was well known that Jim used a telecaster extensively and really only started the Les Paul for feedback reasons and to thicken his live sound up a bit.

Well maybe its well known now because of the internet, youtube vids and forums like this..  But in say 1990 I bet very few people knew that and assumed he always used a LP.

bacchanalian

I have since thought about it and can remember reading it in a book from my school library around 1980/81. It was called something like 'Guitar Heroes'. I was only interested in Keith Richards at the time but read the rest of it anyway. It is odd as after reading it I knew things about guitar players before ever listening to them.  So, I knew how Lowell George died before ever listening to Little Feat. (Things could be worse).
I clearly remember erstwhile DJ and 'enthusiastic hugger', DLT spinning a disc that was a 'bit too heavy' for his show but he loved the guitar work on it.  As soon as I heard it I knew, from the description in the book, that it was Van Halen.
The Jimmy Page section did not specifically cite Stairway but said something like he was known for using a telecaster but changed to a Les Paul when they started playing bigger venues and the tele was giving him feedback problems.  This was further compounded for me when I watched the ARMS concerts and he appeared with a tele with B and (I think) G Bender.

If you had asked me to cite a classic Les Paul tone I would have gone Gary Moore, but I might be biased due to location.     

koneguitarist

WezV said:

Even wikipedia got this one right

With its set neck and maple-capped mahogany body, the Nighthawk is structurally and aesthetically a Gibson, but certain key aspects of its design take it into Fender territory. The slanted bridge humbucker has less gain than the regular Gibson humbucker and has a bright, sharp tone which in single-coil mode is similar to that of Fender's Telecasters and Stratocasters. The mini-humbucker neck pickup has a mellower and warmer tone than the bright bridge pickup, and in single-coil mode is also similar to the sound of the neck pickup in a Stratocaster. The middle pickup (available as an option) is a single-coil design similar to the middle pickup of the Stratocaster. The Nighthawk's scale length (the distance from the nut to the bridge) is Fender's standard 25½" rather than Gibson's usual 24¾". This important difference, which requires greater tension for a given gauge of strings, makes the guitar feel more like a Fender from a playing perspective and adds to the tonal similarities. The Nighthawk's body is closer in mass to a Fender guitar than a typical Gibson Les Paul, and the string-through-body bridge is similar to that of the Telecaster.

Didn't realise it was same scale length, but "anyone can tell a mahogany body" can't they? 

AustrianJohn

EricTheWeary said:

  - seems to be that nobody quite knows.

A good summary of this thread

professorben

AustrianJohn said:

EricTheWeary said:

  - seems to be that nobody quite knows.

A good summary of this thread

7 more pages to go. 

WezV

koneguitarist said:

WezV said:

Even wikipedia got this one right

With its set neck and maple-capped mahogany body, the Nighthawk is structurally and aesthetically a Gibson, but certain key aspects of its design take it into Fender territory. The slanted bridge humbucker has less gain than the regular Gibson humbucker and has a bright, sharp tone which in single-coil mode is similar to that of Fender's Telecasters and Stratocasters. The mini-humbucker neck pickup has a mellower and warmer tone than the bright bridge pickup, and in single-coil mode is also similar to the sound of the neck pickup in a Stratocaster. The middle pickup (available as an option) is a single-coil design similar to the middle pickup of the Stratocaster. The Nighthawk's scale length (the distance from the nut to the bridge) is Fender's standard 25½" rather than Gibson's usual 24¾". This important difference, which requires greater tension for a given gauge of strings, makes the guitar feel more like a Fender from a playing perspective and adds to the tonal similarities. The Nighthawk's body is closer in mass to a Fender guitar than a typical Gibson Les Paul, and the string-through-body bridge is similar to that of the Telecaster.

Didn't realise it was same scale length, but "anyone can tell a mahogany body" can't they? 

Is that the question you asked your mates?

all you have shown is that Gibson were relatively successful in capturing some fender flavour.  Close enough to confuse a small group of people when asked a misleading question.

scale length and pickup choice are a massively important variable here, and yes, I would put them way above body material.

octatonic

WezV said:

scale length and pickup choice are a massively important variable here, and yes, I would put them way above body material.

As would I.
This has been my point all along.