dSLR equivalent of a Les paul

jellyroll

I'm an inexperienced guitarist currently learning on a single coil Godin Session.

I've recently started having nonsensical urges to buy another guitar, specifically a humbuckerry one. This has been prompted by hearing this sort of thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_Ks-WaAC2g

Whilst I recognise that me buying a Les Paul is rather akin to a car enthusiast without a driving licence buying a Ferrari  could I please ask you to park your ridicule for a moment and let me have your thoughts on how I would go about choosing a guitar that would give me the foundations to achieve the sort of tone on the video.

Having been through the whole cycle of buying a beginner machine, selling and progressing, selling and progressing with cameras, I would very much like to save time, aggravation and ultimately money by just getting a decent guitar first time. Here is the photographic equivalent of what I'm trying to avoid:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/05/letter-to-george.html

I have tried some guitars in stores but i) I'm a little (a lot) intimidated by the environment; and ii) don't understand enough about tone to understand the relative contributions of the amp, the guitar and the player. If a player like me picked up the gear of the guy in video, would the tone sound even vaguely similar? 

Please can you advise me on getting a Les Paul or similar that I can grow into and with which I can be pretty sure that any poorness of tone is down to me and not the instrument. If I get a good guitar, I've nowwhere to hide. My budget would be up to around £2k.

Many thanks

(Ducks to avoid incoming abuse)

badlydrawnbanjo

The new traditional pro ii would be a good place to start at around £1300 for a "proper" Gibson Les Paul. Your choice of amp will directly influence the sound of your guitar though...

JookyChap

I doubt you'll get any abuse, there's no problem at all around here if you want people to spend your money for you..

There are loads of Les Paul options within your budget, and many people who know more about them than me, who will be along any time now...but a Gibson Les Paul Standard - or Traditional if you like the weight - will do you fine, if you want to skip the < £1K category and get the real thing.

You could easily get a Custom Shop jobby second hand too, but I'd be spending a good chunk of your money on an amp (assuming you need one).

not_the_dj

+1 for the Traditional Pro 2. I got one a couple of weeks ago as my first 'proper' Les Paul (I've got 3 other lesser Gibson). Brilliant guitar, cheaper than a Standard and with comparable features (coil split) and better looking than the Studios. If you're buying new that's IMO the one to go for.

£2k is a lot though, so that'd easily get you a second hand Custom Shop model. 

geepers0677

Nice tone on that vid.

Your options are unlimited with a budget of 2k!

You can pick up USA standards (with the binding) for as little as £800 preowned and the Studios (without binding) for less, but you need to bear in mind they'll be significantly heavier than the Godin. Weight relief is good! You might be better off splitting your cash - £1200 for an awesome guitar and £800 for a cracking amp to go with it. Your tone will be immediately better and if you sound better, you practise more and therefore play better!

Personally I don't get on with Les Pauls, they look great but I prefer the neck profile of something more Fendery.:(

Also consider PRS at that budget - very pretty!

guitarfishbay

I think you really need to work out which neck size you prefer first.

With Les Pauls there are two main ones.  60s neck which is fairly thin and wide, and 50s neck which is wide and quite deep.  Your first step, if you want a Les Paul, is to work out which of the two you find most comfortable.  They really do feel significantly different and people who like one don't always like the other.

After that we can help narrow down the list of possibles.

ThePrettyDamned

If you want a LP and a cool rock tone, then a marshall type amp or pedal is needed, too.  For the tone above, though, any on the edge amp will do. 

First, try before you buy for different neck shapes.  Second, go used - they depreciate immediately.  I say this, because at some point you might realise that, unless you're a LP type of guy, you'll want to change.  This means you lose less Money.

I'd actually not liken an LP to the SLR thing.  After all, there is a great deal of professional art from 6mp digital SLR cameras out there, because 6mp is enough to print larger than 6ft by 6ft - you stand further away, so resolution is almost irrelevant after that (except for cropping).  You won't see Nikon telling you that, though...

No, with guitars, you do buy quality.  Sometimes.  Gibson QC is iffy, and some expensive LP's are not that good. Likewise, some are among the finest guitars you can buy - try before you buy.  

With an SLR, even a used 10mp one (which, we've established, is enough for good shots - especially as fewer megapixel cameras tend to have better colour reproduction and easier access to priority modes - hence why older Nikons and Canons are still somewhat desirable) you can just get a newer lens.  Or an older one - just better, really.  With a guitar, you can upgrade pickups but with a set neck LP, you won't be able to swap the neck out, which is crucially important.  

Lastly, if you really cared about resolution, colour and image quality, you'd not own a digital camera, you would in fact shoot film.  A 35mm colour slide shot can be scanned to 18mp easily, and above 50mp for a cost.  Medium format film is quite easy to get 100mp from, with zero loss of quality.  This DOES tie in with guitars.  If you could, you'd own a 1959LP, but you can't.  The 1959 LP is THE one to have, apparently. Sadly, my experience with vintage guitars is much lower than that of modern and vintage cameras. 

That 2k you have is, in my opinion, overkill.  £1500 would get you a KILLER les paul used.  In fact, £1000 could.  

In fact, I've seen really nice Les Paul Studios go for £500 or so - they have the full fat body, maple cap, pickups etc.  You lose bling, though, but you gain a bit of mojo from previous ownership - some dings and chips and such.  

Dave_Mc

JookyChap said:

but I'd be spending a good chunk of your money on an amp (assuming you need one).

+1

Any decent les paul (either by gibson or by one of the good quality copy companies- e.g. japanese-made Tokais and the like) will get a tone like that if you can play like that and use a suitable amp (I'd say valve ideally, but even in that vid it's a modeller, so even that mightn't be super-important... though I still say go valve if you can at all and don't have to play at whisper volume all the time).

EDIT: I don't know anything about cameras. >:D< I suspect a valve amp versus a non-valve amp is a bit like the difference between an SLR and a point-and-shoot camera, but I could be completely wrong on that. )

TTony

jellyroll said:

Having been through the whole cycle of buying a beginner machine, selling and progressing, selling and progressing with cameras, I would very much like to save time, aggravation and ultimately money by just getting a decent guitar first time. 

Please can you advise me on getting a Les Paul or similar that I can grow into and with which I can be pretty sure that any poorness of tone is down to me and not the instrument.

Piece of advice #1

Buy a s/h guitar.  There are some stupidly good deals about at the moment, cash is king, and you'll get a damn fine guitar for a lot less than your budget.  At least then, if you do sell in future, you'll not lose the 50% of the cost price that you would lose if you bought new.

Piece of advice #2

There are undoubtedly some fine LPs around - guitars that both sound & feel right, that you'll love forever.  But even the most ardent of LP-lovers will tell you that it takes time, and a lot of searching, to find "the one".  They're just too variable to trust that any two (Gibson) guitars of identical spec will feel and sound the same.  Never buy a Gibson mail order.  Never buy one without having sat and played it (in the shop) for at least 30 mins.  And then sat and played something else, and something else again.  You have to compare them side-by-side to highlight what's good or bad about them.  Trying one, in isolation, and you might think that the £2k feels and sounds great ... but then you pick up your mate's £200 Epiphone and find that his feels & sounds better.  

Taking the above together, look out for s/h PRS.  You'll get all the guitar that you'll ever need in a s/h PRS for well under your budget.  £1000-£1500.

Keep an eye on the classifieds here, or on the Guitars4you.co.uk site, where they clear out used PRS guitars at ridiculously good prices from time to time.  It's a small independent shop, so you can (a) talk to the guy who runs it and (b) trust his advice if you're buying mail order.

Another option, that would enable you to spend your £2k budget on a new guitar would be to visit Feline Guitars in Croydon (just checked your locaiton).  The quality and spec of his guitars is way ahead of Gibson, although you'd lose more if you ever sold it just because it doesn't have a brand name on the headstock.

jedhemsley

To be honest, if you aren't that experienced then you won't really feel or hear the differences between a properly set up £300 guitar and a £1500 Gibson, or at least not as much as someone who has a bit more experience would.

I'd reckon you'd be better off buying a cheaper second hand LP type, possibly an MIJ Tokai, and make sure that it plays well. Then you'd still have a lot of money left lying around to upgrade pickups if you choose to.

You'd end up with probably an equally good playing/sounding guitar, but you won't have had to dish out several grand.

That's just my opinion though - If you want the Gibson name then i guess only a Gibson will do. That's not sarcastic either, one of my two guitars is a Les Paul Traditional which i very much bought because i wanted a Gibson, but i bought that after i'd been playing for 9 years. If i'd have bought it earlier i don't think i would have appreciated the subtle differences between that and a cheaper 'copy'.

ChrisMusic

I have to say that is an absolutely brilliant article.  Not just on cameras but on the human condition.  Every industry from music to defence to fashion, is reliant on the astute observations in it to keep the cycle of spending in motion and business in business.

This is a journey we all love to be on, the hunter gatherer instinct drives us.  So I think we will never learn, and I suspect that we don't really want to either, not really. It's about learning, discovery, pushing some boundaries, maybe a little diversionary activity on occasion, and making our own mistakes, because after all we are each individuals, not like everyone else (or so we like to believe).

GAS - Gear Acquisition Syndrome.  It is as alive and well here as anywhere else that people with an interest that involves equipment gather and share experience.

There are many parallels with photography and music, but also many differences.  The high tech side definitely falls within the remit of the article.  The guitar itself maybe falls outside somewhat, I feel.  It is comparatively low tech and there are so many variations in construction, cosmetics, sound etc that comparison to mass produced tightly focused tech products may not be entirely valid.  The guitar is very much a subject of personal taste, and that sense of what is right may take some time (even a lifetime) to develop.  Just when you have it narrowed down, try two seeming identical guitars, and one sings to you and the other feels dead.  It feels more art than science.

I am not sure if you are even asking the right question?   Or if the responses here are to what you are asking rather than what you need to understand.  And I am not sure it's as simplistic as a Les Paul and an amp, or as simplistic as the SLR analogy either.

There are a lot of sage minds on this forum, and a lot of very good information in the discussions, and often as many opinions as contributors too.  Maybe we all need the "400 hours of shopping time and 3-5 years of much needless agonizing over trivialities." as he put it.

He forgot step 26: you attend / teach a photographic workshop where a young woman asks about using her point and shoot camera.  She has not got a clue about how it works, and to your annoyance she doesn't seem to pay attention, understand or even care about your insistence on understanding the technicalities.

At the end of the day of shooting you all gather around in the evening to view each others work.  GAS has driven some big budget cameras to be used by some of the guys, and there are some great images, self congratulatory pats on the back all round.  Then it's her turn, and on the screen come some of the most beautiful and compelling images you have ever seen.  The room is in stunned silence.  The image is within the photographer, not within the equipment.

EdGrip

I just want to cheer what TTony said above, a hundredfold. 

The joy and satisfaction of finding an excellent second-hand item far outweighs the momentary thrill of buying something that's still got new tags hanging from it. That thrill doesn't last nearly long enough to drown out the creeping realisation that the thing's value depreciated horrifically even on the journey home.

In this respect, guitars and cutting-edge tech like dSLRs or phones aren't comparible. A new guitar is the same as an old guitar. In fact, some people like the old guitars better, but that's just nitpickery by people with too much time on their hands. The fact is, it's the same object, made out of the same materials, doing the same thing acoustically and electronically in the same way as its 50 year old forebear. A second hand Les Paul and a new Les Paul is the same Les Paul. In fact, that's the point; try changing something and watch the fireworks.

By contrast, cameras and phones and such are racing in competition to change and improve. If an old model does what you know you need it to do, go for it; but you might just as well take the plunge and buy a new one, which will almost always be more capable than its predecessors. This is the creator of the bigger trap with new tech, which is the temptation to wait for the new model. There will always be a new model, and you will waste your learning time and your life waiting for it. 

I have to say I don't understand the idea that the progression upwards in the instruments of your hobby is a chore, boring, something to be avoided if you can. Surely that's a continual source of pleasure? Having a thing, getting competent enough with it to want a better thing whilst also learning more about yourself and what kind of thing would suit you at the moment, researching a new thing, finding the new thing, receiving the new thing and then, finally, getting it. This whole process is fun! It's more fun if it happens more than once.

(tangent: Why do people insist that buying a thing in a shop is more pleasurable than buying it online? You go into a shop, maybe you talk to a sales assistant, if you're lucky they are a good soul with honest intentions and the knowledge to back them up, and you buy a thing, get a thrill at the checkout, and go home.

Contrast this to the fun of researching things online, and then the thrill of putting in your card details and damn well buying it. Then, like waiting for a roll of film to come back, you wait in ancicipation until enough days have passed for your to reasonably expect the item to arrive. And then the postman pulls up, and delivers your shiny new thing, and you open the packaging and play with it. It's basically like getting to buy the thing twice. Blates better.)

horse

My 2 cents would be:

The pod hd300 can clearly help get the tone you're hearing in the clip, which sounds like a lightish overdrive with some reverb to me. Wouldn't take too much from your budget.

I'm guessing that your Godin is already a pretty decent guitar compared to what many people learn on, and spending around £500 on a used twin humbucker type guitar will get you something of at least comparable quality.

Then you'll have plenty of budget left for ongoing gas, such as a tele, SG etc etc...

I personally don't think you need to spend 2K to get a sweet tone, no matter on your experience level - but if you do want buy a dream guitar then don't let anybody tell you that you shouldn't!

Dave_Mc

horse said:

I personally don't think you need to spend 2K to get a sweet tone, no matter on your experience level - but if you do want buy a dream guitar then don't let anybody tell you that you shouldn't!

Agreed

TTony

I'm going to throw something else into the mix here.

Go build your own guitar.  Yourself.  With your own hands.  Design and build exactly what you want - and if you're not quite sure exactly what you want, you'll get all the advice and help (and challenges) through the process so that you end up building exactly what you want.

For your £2k, you get a guitar.  But not any guitar.  You get a guitar that you couldn't buy off a guitar shop wall, because it's exactly your guitar, unique to what you want.  Plus you get a week's (exhausting) holiday in Scotland.  Plus you get to spend the week talking and playing guitars with likeminded guitar talkers and players.  Plus you learn some incredible skills.

When I did it (the first time) it was a truly life-changing experience ... click the pic ...

ChrisMusic

Great and varied advice from all on here, as always.

I would reiterate that - …"when you have it narrowed down, try two seeming identical guitars, and one sings to you and the other feels dead.  It feels more art than science."  which is why I would much prefer to audition any guitar before parting with my "hard earned" for it, and the thrill of going on the hunt, well to the shop or to meet some nice guitarist to be more accurate.

That aside a big +1, especially to @EdGrip for the comments, and sage advice as always from @TTony (great link BTW, I too am tempted), and to everyone else.

I thought I would give you guys the post script post to the SLR article linked in the OP - - -  the second part of Mikes letter - - -

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

"But if I were to sum up my actual, real buying advice in very short form, it would go something like this:

1. Do your level best to get something you really, really like.

2. Make a promise to yourself—set a time goal in order to limit the time you might waste shopping and the money you might waste buying successive iterations of the same item. The best experiences I've had with new cameras were when I invested in exactly what I wanted and promised myself in advance that I'm going to commit to it for a certain period of time. I committed to the M6 for one year, and used it for nearly three; the OM-4T for three years, and used it for nearly five. Both experiences were great—very focused on pictures as opposed to gear. It's fun to shop, but it's crucial to stop. 

3. While you own something, no matter what it is, use it as hard as you can and enjoy it."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Good luck jellyroll - whatever way you go with your guitar, enjoy the journey, it is wonderful, there is a great community to support you on here, and music truly does nourish the soul  

[Deleted User]

A lot of the player's tone in the clip is to do with his touch. He's playing straight-forward pentatonic lines but has quite sophisticated phrasing, a nice vibrato and excellent control of playing dynamics.

I suspect he would sound very similar using a less expensive guitar.

That said, if you want to spend some serious money on a better guitar, I see no reason why you shouldn't.

I hope this doesn't sound patronising, but if you lived in my part of the country, I'd be happy to accompany you on a guitar buying expedition. Maybe a forumite nearer to you could assist?

horse

'It's fun to shop, but it's crucial to stop'

WTF?

Dave_Mc

^ I know you're only joking but that's good advice. Or at least, to maybe expand on it slightly- stop chasing your (plural you, not you personally!) own tail by buying very slightly different versions of the same thing in some futile quest to find the holy grail.

For example, if I want a tele, I'll buy a decent tele. And play it and be happy with it. That's not to say I'll necessarily stop shopping- I might decide, a while down the line, that I'd like a LP, say. But I won't buy that tele and then decide I need a very slightly better tele etc. etc.

monquixote

Lots of very good advice on this thread, but here is my personal 2p worth:

1. Do you want a mahogany/maple, set neck, twin humbucker guitar, or do you want a Les Paul?

This is important, because ultimately it doesn't matter how good a PRS/Feline/Knaggs is what it isn't is a Gibson Les Paul. If you are fulfilling a childhood dream of owning the guitar that Slash/Page/Perry used then there is really only one choice. 

2. If you want to spend £2K then spend £2k. You don't have to pay your dues on crap instruments, you can buy great guitars for £500, but you can buy better ones for a couple of grand.

3. I don't know much about cameras, but I suspect they are somewhat different from guitars. Though people have a preference for Canon, or Nikon, etc I suspect that most people would take a D700 over a much cheaper model whereas someone who likes a skinny neck, flat radius, big frets, high output pickups would probably prefer playing a bottom of the range Ibby RG to a genuine 50's Telecaster. Which leads me to:

4. You probably don't know what you want. If you are a beginner you almost certainly haven't played enough guitars to know what you like (this is why I wouldn't commission a Feline or build something in your position). Giving something some time in a shop is important, but even then it doesn't really tell you the whole story. I recently bought a guitar with a chunky neck with 7" radius, it felt weird, but having owned it for a while I now like the profile more than any of my other guitars. Some time before I bought a Yammy SG (quite Gibsony) again it felt odd, but after 6 months I couldn't live with it and sold it on. The point is I felt the same about both guitars when I bought them because they weren't what I was used to, but it wasn't until I'd had them for a while that I discovered how I really felt about them. This leads to my final point. 

5. Buy secondhand. Guitars are also unlike digital cameras in that provided you buy something secondhand for a decent price you need not lose a penny on it should you decide to move it on, or trade it. I've bought and sold stacks of gear, but I enjoy the process and in the main it hasn't really cost me anything other than the postage, or a bit of petrol money because I will only buy something provided it's at a decent price. So what I suggest is don't agonise thinking you are trying to buy your forever soulmate at the first time of asking, just go on the classifieds and find something you like the look of at a good price and buy it. Keep it for a few months and if it doesn't speak to you flip it for something else. 

For example on the classifieds there is currently a DGT, P22, LP Standard, LP Traditional, LP R7, etc. I'm not saying they are all good prices, but they are all good guitars you could easily sell on if you don't like them.

photek

Monquixote is spot on. Number 3 is very important I think because until you have spent some time getting to know a guitar you really don't know what it gives you over another one.

In most cases a £500 guitar with a decent set up and possibly a wiring upgrade is 90% as good as a £2000 guitar. It's that last 10% that you really notice when you have been playing for a long time.

Personally I would buy a second hand LP studio and take it to a reputable tech for a set up, this might last you forever, unless of course you look in the classified section and the GAS monster takes over