If Les Pauls are so great, then why...

MilanPan!c

If Les Pauls are so great, then why are there always dozens of them for sale on every sale site online? And in every used guitar shop in the world...?

I've personally played probably close to a hundred. Some are great, most are very very mediocre. Some awful. A few have been genius. But, they're soooooo variable. Even two made the same year, same model, same bits, same everything, can sound and feel quite different.

And they're soooooo widely available. No shortage of LPs.

So, is it just the "branding"?

What do you guys think?

partyatmygaff

Replace LP with Stratocaster and you'll still have the same point.

There's nothing bad about LPs. It's just that they're a very common guitar (Much like the Strat).

firefly08

I've personally played probably close to a hundred. Some are great, most are very very mediocre. Some awful. A few have been genius. But, they're soooooo variable. Even two made the same year, same model, same bits, same everything, can sound and feel quite different.

Wow I never realized there was that much variation in them. I suppose I haven't played that many of them. I'll admit there is a certain pull from the brand name and the looks, which would be enough to make me pick a LP over a similar quality guitar even if it cost a bit more. But that only accounts for a slight difference. Mostly, their popular because they're great, and they're expensive mostly because they're made in the US.

MilanPan!c

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Replace LP with Stratocaster and you'll still have the same point.

There's nothing bad about LPs. It's just that they're a very common guitar (Much like the Strat).

Agreed, but at least you can get a decent strat for less than a grand. A decent LP is really at least 1400.

And there's soooooo many better LP style guitars for a lot less, for much better quality and sound.

MilanPan!c

firefly08 wrote: »

Wow I never realized there was that much variation in them. I suppose I haven't played that many of them. I'll admit there is a certain pull from the brand name and the looks, which would be enough to make me pick a LP over a similar quality guitar even if it cost a bit more. But that only accounts for a slight difference. Mostly, their popular because they're great, and they're expensive mostly because they're made in the US.

If you play a lot of guitars you'll prolly come to the conclusion that they're not THAT great. I mean, my 850 euro YAMAHA MSG is better than 90% of the LPs I've played (and people dont sell MSGs either, cause they rock, unlike LPs which are sold all the time).

My Yamaha SG2000 is better than 98% of LPs I've played. It kills and I mean destroys things like the Slash LP I played and recorded with recently. For example.

Squidgy Black

See there's a hell of a lot of Les Pauls in circulation, and they're so pricey 'cause of Gibson's ridiculous pricing methods. The majority of people selling them are usually upgrading, or have more expensive guitars and need the cash, and this is the least versatile.

Don't get me wrong, I love les pauls, just not Gibson.

firefly08

If you play a lot of guitars you'll prolly come to the conclusion that they're not THAT great. I mean, my 850 euro YAMAHA MSG is better than 90% of the LPs I've played (and people dont sell MSGs either, cause they rock, unlike LPs which are sold all the time).

My Yamaha SG2000 is better than 98% of LPs I've played. It kills and I mean destroys things like the Slash LP I played and recorded with recently. For example.

and they're so pricey 'cause of Gibson's ridiculous pricing methods.

Yeah there does seem to be something seriously wrong with the way Gibson stuff is priced, especially in Ireland. My Les Paul cost me $800 brand new. That was and is the normal selling price for the Studio model. For some reason, a smooth lacquer finish and some plastic trim adds $500 to the price in the US (but nothing to the sound). Back home, weeks after buying it, I went into a well known music shop in Dublin and saw the exact same guitar for about 1100 euros, while the fancy Standard models were up around the 1400 mark as you say. It is ridiculous, I'll agree. But then I have seen my model more recently for around the 800 euro mark. For the Irish market, I think 800 euro is a good price for that guitar.

ball ox

Can't stand 'em. I've yet to pick one up that doesn't feel like a boat oar hanging out of a cavity block. Horrible yokes.

-=al=-

Who needs oars :pac:

<snip>

Love the sound of a LP but hate the weight and clunkyness all the same... It's nice to have one... all be it not a fancy pants one but one I like enough

firefly08

Can't stand 'em. I've yet to pick one up that doesn't feel like a boat oar hanging out of a cavity block. Horrible yokes.

Haha classic comment. I have to hand it to you... I don't use the term "lol" often, but literally LOL!

The funny thing is when you compare the weights and neck profiles of various guitars they vary by only the smallest amounts, but it makes a huge difference to how they feel. Even the Epiphones feel totally different to me.

punchdrunk

SG all the way!! :pac:

gerarda

The only concern I would have is the fragile neck, to me, tele's and strats just seem to be a more sturdy guitar. Plus I think a lot of guys buy them (because of the branding and popularity) and immediately expect to sound like their idols, it doesn't happen so they get fed up and decide to move it on.

CianRyan

I've played so many manky dirty feeling LP's and 2 off the top of my head that I've actually liked.
They weight a tone but I don't mind that so much as the necks feel all wrong to me and they give very little feedback(playing wise, not sound wise).
It could be that I'm so use to Strat's but a good LP is like hen's teeth.

I've found the same with PRS's.
A mate a Custom 22 which feel alright at best and I recorded with a Custom 24 a year or so back and I found, like the LP, there wasn't a lot of playability.
They feel like tools rather than instruments.
You work with them, you don't play them.

Might sound like utter bull**** that us guitarists are so famous for but in my 9+ years if playing, 2 good LP's is a bit shocking.

rcaz

gerarda wrote: »

Plus I think a lot of guys buy them (because of the branding and popularity) and immediately expect to sound like their idols, it doesn't happen so they get fed up and decide to move it on.

That's exactly it. People want to be like Jimmy Page, Slash, Gary Moore, Jeff Beck, Mick Jones, whoever else. When they realise they have to be very good at music for that to happen, they sell up :pac:

I don't get why more people don't realise you can do all that stuff and more with a Hohner Telecaster copy :cool:



(hlysht that smiley is just like Prince! :P )

Ravelleman

As I say here frequently enough, I always find the whole adverts.ie expert "Gibsons don't lose their value" thing a little irksome. The fact is that most Gibsons take a big hit on their new price if you try to sell them. But I suppose that most people have to assign an arbitrary value to their instrument in the hope of leveraging a decent trade or just to avoid lowballing chumps.

I think the real reason that we see so many Les Paul and Strats for sale second hand is a combination of the simple fact that they are in vast supply and other psychological factors, where people treat objects as something that can create an experience rather than just a functional tool to make music.

People buy Les Pauls and Strats because they are iconic instruments and the mere fact that they own one and can play one brings them closer to the musicians and the lifestyles that the idolise. Once you own the instrument the truth is often quite different. A Strat you may have, but sound like Clapton you certainly do not. You may also have a '52 RI Tele that looks the real deal but find that the 7.25" neck radius really isn't that comfortable or 'progressive'.

Ultimately most people probably enjoy imagining themselves with a nice instrument more than actually playing it properly.

So, as the internet allows us to research these instruments, compare all of the features, discover that we hate Les Pauls and wail on Gibson QC or whatever, it's all just part of the process of consumption and probably a reflection of the society we live in.

Ravelleman

punchdrunk wrote: »

SG all the way!! :pac:

I just bought me a sweet Robbie Krieger SG the other day actually.

Elaborating on the psychological factors I was talking about, I think one of the other great appeals of the Gibson brand might actually be the very fact that their instruments are so variable and frequently so frustrating.

Many people on fora such as this one seem to enjoy the process of looking for a nice Gibson - the one that speaks to them above all others. People seem to like the slight roughness between the binding and the neck, the sticky nitro that checks over time, the care that the have to put into bring out the best of the guitar and maintaining, the delicate necks and other uniquely Gibson features. It's almost like esoteric knowledge that one discovers and cherishes.

When people compare Gibsons with other brands, frequently far-eastern imports, they see personality in the instrument. They project their values and emotions on to the instrument and see something more organic than the Chinese copy with its abalone binding, exotic burls and inch thick poly coating.

People like the search; the struggle because it's all an experience. Perhaps buying a Xaviere or an Agile just isn't the same.

firefly08

Ravelleman wrote: »

I just bought me a sweet Robbie Krieger SG the other day actually.

Elaborating on the psychological factors I was talking about, I think one of the other great appeals of the Gibson brand might actually be the very fact that their instruments are so variable and frequently so frustrating.

Many people on fora such as this one seem to enjoy the process of looking for a nice Gibson - the one that speaks to them above all others. People seem to like the slight roughness between the binding and the neck, the sticky nitro that checks over time, the care that the have to put into bring out the best of the guitar and maintaining, the delicate necks and other uniquely Gibson features. It's almost like esoteric knowledge that one discovers and cherishes.

When people compare Gibsons with other brands, frequently far-eastern imports, they see personality in the instrument. They project their values and emotions on to the instrument and see something more organic than the Chinese copy with its abalone binding, exotic burls and inch thick poly coating.

People like the search; the struggle because it's all an experience. Perhaps buying a Xaviere or an Agile just isn't the same.

You're spot on there I think. Go to the motors forum and ask about Alfa Romeo, you'll find the same thing. It's not about quality or any measurable characteristic - it's all about how the thing makes you feel.

Malice

Personally I have never liked the feel of Les Pauls so their popularity baffles me.

Miklos

Les Paul to me are very meh, unless they have p90s. Les Paul Juniors, however, now there is a guitar I can get behind!

BostonB

I'm guessing here but isn't the difference in cost a lot to do with how they are made. Fenders were fundamentally designed to be mass produced, cheaper woods, alder, maple, flat bodies, blot on neck. Whereas the Les Paul isn't, expensive timber mahogany (which varies a lot) is a lot heavier, curved top, set in next, bindings, inlays, maple cap, flamed finishes etc.

Squidgy Black

BostonB wrote: »

I'm guessing here but isn't the difference in cost a lot to do with how they are made. Fenders were fundamentally designed to be mass produced, cheaper woods, alder, maple, flat bodies, blot on neck. Whereas the Les Paul isn't, expensive timber mahogany (which varies a lot) is a lot heavier, curved top, set in next, bindings, inlays, maple cap, flamed finishes etc.

Nope, they're all mass produced, and the quality control is terrible. You pay for the name, not the quality sadly.

Ravelleman

stetyrrell wrote: »

Nope, they're all mass produced, and the quality control is terrible. You pay for the name, not the quality sadly.

That wasn´t the case back in the day. What Gibson have over any other brand is old-world charm. Fender certainly don´t have the same history of true craftsmanship. Whether or not Gibson still possess it is another case, but they certainly did.

This dude has it right, if you can spare 9 minutes of your life.

feylya

-=al=-, there is no need for that picture here. If you wish to make jokes about current events, may I suggest After Hours. You have been warned about off topic posts previously. Next time, you will be taking a break from this forum

darrenw5094

Malice wrote: »

Personally I have never liked the feel of Les Pauls so their popularity baffles me.

They look cool though. I can't picture this gason with another guitar. Well, maybe a BC Rich Mockingbird.;)



Just like Strats, the LP has it's own distinctive tone though.

ball ox

"Just like Strats, the LP has it's own distinctive tone though.'

It's probably just a matter of taste I guess.The thought of a nice strat played through a nice clean tube amp that's just about breaking up is one of the most organicly beautifull sounds to my ear.
A clean les Paul however sounds to me like any other humbucking guitar - not organic, lacks dinension, needs gain.

Horses for courses and all that

Malice

darrenw5094 wrote: »

They look cool though.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess. I've never really liked the look of them either .

darrenw5094

ball ox wrote: »

"Just like Strats, the LP has it's own distinctive tone though.'

It's probably just a matter of taste I guess.The thought of a nice strat played through a nice clean tube amp that's just about breaking up is one of the most organicly beautifull sounds to my ear.
A clean les Paul however sounds to me like any other humbucking guitar - not organic, lacks dinension, needs gain.

Horses for courses and all that

Yep......LP into a Marshall crunch channel is the business.

Welease

Going against the grain here.. but I've never been particularly bothered by how a guitar feels in a shop (most feel uncomfortable to me, especially if the neck radius, size, strings etc. are different), and am quiet happy to purchase online..

Each and every guitar I own will be setup by me for me.. and setup in a way that feels comfortable for the way I play.

Most complaints that I have seen about quality control are simply a matter of setup (although of course not all are.. I have an LP standard which arrived with a high fret which should not happen), and while a shop should have a guitar setup to a average standard, it would be nigh on impossible for them to setup a configuration that suits every individual style. The more people understand how to setup their guitars, the less "issues" they will likely have.

Just my 2c.

gerarda

Interesting thread - personally I do like LP's but I just don't think they are worth the asking price.

Ravelleman

Welease wrote: »

Going against the grain here.. but I've never been particularly bothered by how a guitar feels in a shop (most feel uncomfortable to me, especially if the neck radius, size, strings etc. are different), and am quiet happy to purchase online..

I get your point here but certain things like fretboard radius, fret size etc are simply no-goers for me. No matter how I set up a guitar with a 7.25" fretboard radius and vintage frets I just won´t like it. The fact is that 10-12" radii with medium-jumbo frets just feel so much more comfortable to me.

But I understand what you mean. The in-shop experience of guitar is undoubtedly different to what you discover in the comfort of you own home, with your amps, your effects and you favourite picks. I prefer to look for features I know I´ll like, check videos, try one if I can find one in Dublin - normally I can´t - and then buy online. There is a risk involved but such is the nature of living on an island.

Welease

Ravelleman wrote: »

I get your point here but certain things like fretboard radius, fret size etc are simply no-goers for me. No matter how I set up a guitar with a 7.25" fretboard radius and vintage frets I just won´t like it. The fact is that 10-12" radii with medium-jumbo frets just feel so much more comfortable to me.

But I understand what you mean. The in-shop experience of guitar is undoubtedly different to what you discover in the comfort of you own home, with your amps, your effects and you favourite picks. I prefer to look for features I know I´ll like, check videos, try one if I can find one in Dublin - normally I can´t - and then buy online. There is a risk involved but such is the nature of living on an island.

Oh absolutely.. on radius, size, shape etc.. Some guitars just don't suit..

I was just talking about guitars that do suit.. If you know how to setup a guitar then in many cases the perceived difference between a good LP (or any guitar) and a poor LP can be non existent (although as with all things involving natural materials.. there can be poor instruments).

MilanPan!c

Welease wrote: »

Oh absolutely.. on radius, size, shape etc.. Some guitars just don't suit..

I was just talking about guitars that do suit.. If you know how to setup a guitar then in many cases the perceived difference between a good LP (or any guitar) and a poor LP can be non existent (although as with all things involving natural materials.. there can be poor instruments).

I've literally played beautifully set up very set up LPs that sound sooooo vanilla and bland and have no ... vibe...

For instance, some LPs vibrate the bodies, when you play, others don't, no matter how hard you pluck or strum... Some sustain for days, others don't.

It's seemingly nothing to do with the "bits" and everything to do with how they're put together.

Plus, I genuinely think the standards at the Nashville factory are very inconsistent. Some of the binding is soooo poorly done... esp in the late 90s... just pathetic really. Esp for a 2K guitar.

BostonB

stetyrrell wrote: »

Nope, they're all mass produced, and the quality control is terrible. You pay for the name, not the quality sadly.

The basic woods are still more expensive though no? Even if mass produced the more complicated one is going to have more to go wrong.

MilanPan!c

Ravelleman wrote: »

I just bought me a sweet Robbie Krieger SG the other day actually.

Elaborating on the psychological factors I was talking about, I think one of the other great appeals of the Gibson brand might actually be the very fact that their instruments are so variable and frequently so frustrating.

Many people on fora such as this one seem to enjoy the process of looking for a nice Gibson - the one that speaks to them above all others. People seem to like the slight roughness between the binding and the neck, the sticky nitro that checks over time, the care that the have to put into bring out the best of the guitar and maintaining, the delicate necks and other uniquely Gibson features. It's almost like esoteric knowledge that one discovers and cherishes.

When people compare Gibsons with other brands, frequently far-eastern imports, they see personality in the instrument. They project their values and emotions on to the instrument and see something more organic than the Chinese copy with its abalone binding, exotic burls and inch thick poly coating.

People like the search; the struggle because it's all an experience. Perhaps buying a Xaviere or an Agile just isn't the same.

I honestly think that's mostly BS. Not that you're saying something that's not well observed, but that the search for one good guitar out thousands makes that one good one somehow more emotionally resonant, intrinsically.

I would say you actually have a much better chance of finding a "decent" LP, as they are legion, to finding a Yamaha SG2500 in decent nick.

That reality though doesn't translate into people, other than guitar nerds, wanting to pay 10K for the (IMO) superior Yammy.

Those Yamahas are, just to compare brands, also completely hand made and the wood is all hand chosen. In the 80s, when they were produced at their highest standard, they only made about 250 a year. Max.

So, they're very rare.

But the value ascribed to them is completely out of whack. No matter how many glowing reviews you read they still sell for a lot less than a pretty lame LP.

firefly08

Nope, they're all mass produced, and the quality control is terrible. You pay for the name, not the quality sadly.

Well Gibson says they're made by hand. They describe the process in detail here.

If anyone has information to suggest this isn't true, don't hold back!

I think old-school companies like Gibson get a bad rap over prices and people seem to think it's all because of the name. The bottom line is, if someone could make an identical product for less, they would, and there is no way on Earth that the name would protect Gibson. Sure, there would always be a few people with more money than sense who would stick with the brand name, but people like that are vastly outnumbered by those who want value for money.

ball ox

firefly08 wrote: »

Nope, they're all mass produced, and the quality control is terrible. You pay for the name, not the quality sadly.

Well Gibson says they're made by hand. They describe the process in detail here.

If anyone has information to suggest this isn't true, don't hold back!

I think old-school companies like Gibson get a bad rap over prices and people seem to think it's all because of the name. The bottom line is, if someone could make an identical product for less, they would, and there is no way on Earth that the name would protect Gibson. Sure, there would always be a few people with more money than sense who would stick with the brand name, but people like that are vastly outnumbered by those who want value for money.

{Enter bacchus fanboys stage left}

:P

MilanPan!c

firefly08 wrote: »

Well Gibson says they're made by hand. They describe the process in detail here.

If anyone has information to suggest this isn't true, don't hold back!

I think old-school companies like Gibson get a bad rap over prices and people seem to think it's all because of the name. The bottom line is, if someone could make an identical product for less, they would, and there is no way on Earth that the name would protect Gibson. Sure, there would always be a few people with more money than sense who would stick with the brand name, but people like that are vastly outnumbered by those who want value for money.

There's a lot wrong with this post.

"The bottom line is, if someone could make an identical product for less, they would"

They do, there's a LOT of guitars out there better built that sound as good, new on the shelf, for significantly less.

"and there is no way on Earth that the name would protect Gibson"

Brand protect companies that release shoddy products all the time. It's called brand loyalty. Add to that, Gibson is one of the "big boys". Their stuff is in almost every shop, meaning they can 1) produce in bulk and keep prices low, and 2) have decent sales no matter the quality, esp at this point in their "life".

"Sure, there would always be a few people with more money than sense who would stick with the brand name..."

You say that, but the number of LPs on Adverts (and everywhere else) shows that a LOT of people both buy AND sell these... that's not true with all guitars... even really expensive ones.

"people like that are vastly outnumbered by those who want value for money"

"People" want a lot of things, but that doesn't negate the fact that Gibson has been criticized by people who "know" guitars for their prices for years and years.

My advice to people, regarding guitars and amps, is try EVERYTHING you can. You'll find extreme value, esp in the used/vintage market, if you can avoid the whole, "brand loyalty" nonsense!

firefly08

"The bottom line is, if someone could make an identical product for less, they would"

They do, there's a LOT of guitars out there better built that sound as good, new on the shelf, for significantly less.

This comes up a lot - let's be clear: to make a meaningful comparison, of the quality, it has to be the same. If it sounds "as good" but different, it's not comparable, because the appeal of different sounds is subjective. If it looks and feels "as good" different, then that's not comparable either. My point is that if you set up shop in the US and make a guitar just like a Les Paul with the same materials and workforce, it will cost you the same as it costs them. Then you'll realize that you're in the same boat as them; you can't afford to sell it for any less than they do - but, they have a long established reputation and you don't. So what do you do? You make it different, because at least then your product might appeal to those that don't particularly like Gibsons. But now it's not comparable any more!

The only guitars I've seen that are almost indistinguishable from Gibsons are ESPs (in fact I believe they have been sued by Gibson because of this). But guess what? They don't cost any less (at least over here in the US). The only reasons they sell anything at all are because (a) there are always people who hate Gibson and (b) James Hetfield.

Brand protect companies that release shoddy products all the time. It's called brand loyalty

Well I know a lot of people think this, but I personally don't. Not completely; brand names are worth a little premium, but not as much as people think.

My advice to people, regarding guitars and amps, is try EVERYTHING you can. You'll find extreme value, esp in the used/vintage market, if you can avoid the whole, "brand loyalty" nonsense!

I agree with that 100%.

BostonB

darrenw5094 wrote: »

They look cool though. I can't picture this gason with another guitar. Well, maybe a BC Rich Mockingbird.;)



Just like Strats, the LP has it's own distinctive tone though.

Curious you used this picture. The LP slash originally used wasn't a Gibson.

It was a Replica.
http://www.krisderrig.com/Kris-Derrig.php

BostonB

Maybe it because I've never owned an expensive (500+) guitar. But I always found I've like one guitar over another even if they were pretty much identical in spec.

Grolschevik

My first -- and now my second -- guitar was a (late '70s) Pearl Les Paul copy. Fantastic guitar, great sound, Di Marzios.

My second guitar -- now my first -- was a 1998 Les Paul Standard. As I've mentioned before here, I went through a dozen or more before I found the right one for me in the shops.

They are both great guitars. However, they play differently; they sound different; they have different woods. I play the Gibson by choice because of the feel of the neck. A different neck to the Pearl, but one that I am more at home with.

I won't sell either of them ever, even though I have considered selling the Pearl on a number of occasions.

However, the Gibson is beautiful to look at. The Pearl is not.

Just my opinion.

Gaspode

And just yesterday I was reading the read in a very similar vein (Guitarist Ireland group on FB) but strats were the object of derision/adulation.

Personally I dont think brand matters, it's down to how the individual guitar feels to you.
I've not played many Gibson LPs, but those I did I didn't think were worth their price, and were a tad heavy for my liking.

They're purty though compared to Strats.

punchdrunk

I actually would prefer a junior or a special to a standard,
But goldtops and black LP customs are beautiful in there own right

Not a sunburst LP fan at all!

Ravelleman

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I honestly think that's mostly BS. Not that you're saying something that's not well observed, but that the search for one good guitar out thousands makes that one good one somehow more emotionally resonant, intrinsically.

I would say you actually have a much better chance of finding a "decent" LP, as they are legion, to finding a Yamaha SG2500 in decent nick.

I don't think the comparison here is really valid. If you refer to my previous post I talk about other psychological factors that people experience when they buy an instrument from an iconic brand with a history like Gibson's. So it's a combination of history, search and other factors that ultimately leads to the experience that comes from owning a Gibson - what I think is one of the big pulls of the brand. The fact is that Yamaha doesn't have that history, no matter how much people might enjoy theirs. I also don't think that they're very easy on the eye, but that's a different matter entirely.

If we all wanted to play 'superior' instruments we'd all have some kind of rationalised, double cut away, 24 fret guitars made from futuristic materials that are scientifically proven to resonate more than any type of wood, which are covered in phase switches and coffee makers. But obviously it doesn't work like that.

The Yammy works for you and that's great but I'm just talking about the appeal of one brand - Gibson - and it certainly has a lot despite how the haters be hatin'. The rareness and quality of the instrument don't necessarily translate into something moving or exciting.

MilanPan!c

Ravelleman wrote: »

I don't think the comparison here is really valid. If you refer to my previous post I talk about other psychological factors that people experience when they buy an instrument from an iconic brand with a history like Gibson's. So it's a combination of history, search and other factors that ultimately leads to the experience that comes from owning a Gibson - what I think is one of the big pulls of the brand. The fact is that Yamaha doesn't have that history, no matter how much people might enjoy theirs. I also don't think that they're very easy on the eye, but that's a different matter entirely.

If we all wanted to play 'superior' instruments we'd all have some kind of rationalised, double cut away, 24 fret guitars made from futuristic materials that are scientifically proven to resonate more than any type of wood, which are covered in phase switches and coffee makers. But obviously it doesn't work like that.

The Yammy works for you and that's great but I'm just talking about the appeal of one brand - Gibson - and it certainly has a lot despite how the haters be hatin'. The rareness and quality of the instrument don't necessarily translate into something moving or exciting.

My point was, is, that that psychological aspect is nonsense.

Projecting worth onto something simply because it was hard to find doesn't actually make it valuable; likewise something being amazing doesn't make it valuable if no one wants it.

Gibson heads have created a cult of Gibson, which like all cults, is full of delusion and self-aggrandisement.

MilanPan!c

firefly08 wrote: »

This comes up a lot - let's be clear: to make a meaningful comparison, of the quality, it has to be the same. If it sounds "as good" but different, it's not comparable, because the appeal of different sounds is subjective. If it looks and feels "as good" different, then that's not comparable either. My point is that if you set up shop in the US and make a guitar just like a Les Paul with the same materials and workforce, it will cost you the same as it costs them. Then you'll realize that you're in the same boat as them; you can't afford to sell it for any less than they do - but, they have a long established reputation and you don't. So what do you do? You make it different, because at least then your product might appeal to those that don't particularly like Gibsons. But now it's not comparable any more!

The only guitars I've seen that are almost indistinguishable from Gibsons are ESPs (in fact I believe they have been sued by Gibson because of this). But guess what? They don't cost any less (at least over here in the US). The only reasons they sell anything at all are because (a) there are always people who hate Gibson and (b) James Hetfield.

Well I know a lot of people think this, but I personally don't. Not completely; brand names are worth a little premium, but not as much as people think.

I agree with that 100%.

A few things.

Apple made a huge mess with antennas on a recent iteration of their phones. It made the phone drop calls like mad. People still bought them in droves. It had almost no detrimental effect on their business. A different business without the same brand loyalty probably wouldve suffered much more. It's ok to believe brand loyalty isnt a big deal, but it's a belief not based on anything I've ever seen or heard.

As for things having to sound like Les Pauls.... On this very thread there's people saying how multiple les Paul's sound different from each other. To look at Adverts, people claim there Les Paul sounds different. And guess what, it's not BS.

Many guitars can cop a Les Paul sound. It's no big amazingly unique tone.

BostonB

Value, Like Beauty, Is In The Eye Of The Beholder...Or another way, It's not the destination, but the journey that counts.

Cult of a brand isn't unique to Gibson either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k9P62cC-_c

The iPhone isn't the only phone to suffer from the Grip of Death. People all bought those phones too.

Many guitars can get Les Paul "like" tones. Yet you can almost always pick a LP out on a record, as distinct from other guitars. Ditto a strat or a tele, or a SG or flying V for that matter. Mind you I generally can't tell many modern guitars apart that well. Some of that might be how CD's are mixed though. Certainly Live a good LP is very distinctive.

Ravelleman

MilanPan!c wrote: »

My point was, is, that that psychological aspect is nonsense.

Projecting worth onto something simply because it was hard to find doesn't actually make it valuable; likewise something being amazing doesn't make it valuable if no one wants it.

I have to disagree with you there.

This whole process is something that emerged after the Second World War and has been written about by a lot of sociologists.

Projecting worth on to something doesn't change its inherent value but certainly increases its worth in the eyes of the owner. And that's what marketing is all about. Even though it may not be the best quality or value on the market, people still want it and will pay for it.

firefly08

Apple made a huge mess with antennas on a recent iteration of their phones. It made the phone drop calls like mad. People still bought them in droves. It had almost no detrimental effect on their business. A different business without the same brand loyalty probably wouldve suffered much more. It's ok to believe brand loyalty isnt a big deal, but it's a belief not based on anything I've ever seen or heard.

For that to be applicable in this discussion, there would have to be another product that is:

-the same as the iPhone, including price, but without the call dropping problem

OR

-the same as the iPhone, including the problem, but at a lower price.

Then Apple's sales might have suffered. But there is nothing else the same as an iPhone. I've seen them all. You may say the others are the same for all intents and purposes, but a great many people don't agree with you. (I personally think some of the alternatives are better, but it turns out the majority don't agree with me either in this case.)

Actually even though I'd never buy their stuff, Apple is a good example of the kind of thing I'm talking about: they have a long established name and a great reputation, but yet their brand name does not command much of a premium. Can you buy another laptop carved from a solid block of aluminium at a lower price elsewhere?

MilanPan!c

firefly08 wrote: »

For that to be applicable in this discussion, there would have to be another product that is:

-the same as the iPhone, including price, but without the call dropping problem

OR

-the same as the iPhone, including the problem, but at a lower price.

Then Apple's sales might have suffered. But there is nothing else the same as an iPhone. I've seen them all. You may say the others are the same for all intents and purposes, but a great many people don't agree with you. (I personally think some of the alternatives are better, but it turns out the majority don't agree with me either in this case.)

Actually even though I'd never buy their stuff, Apple is a good example of the kind of thing I'm talking about: they have a long established name and a great reputation, but yet their brand name does not command much of a premium. Can you buy another laptop carved from a solid block of aluminium at a lower price elsewhere?

That's a silly example. I can buy (and video editing suites are now full of) a PC that's as powerful as any Mac, for a good 40% less in many cases. Macs have developed a cult and people pay a huge cult tax for them. ESP apple branded accessories which are often 2-3 times the cost of a non-Apple branded equivalent.

And people still unquestioningly line up to buy them.

BostonB

Face it, you're wrong about the grip of death antenna issue. Its on many phones.

You can also buy a PC that's as expensive or more expensive, if you buy a premium, business or workstation product line. People still buy them aswell. Its never been solely about the benchmarks. If you think it is, you don't understand the product and/or market.

The only real issue here is for someone who says branding doesn't matter, you're very brand sensitive. Each to their own.

http://cigarboxguitars.com/community/musicians/seasick-steve

http://www.celebrityrockstarguitars.com/rock/zztop.htm