Les Paul Axcess

[vonFrenchie]

Have any of you seen the Les Paul Axcess? I have never really been partial to Les Pauls because of their bulky neck joint (my LP copy has a relaxed neck joint). But Gibson finally figured out that its kinda hard to play way up there on a Les Paul for some players. They carved out the neck joint on the LP Axcess. Check it out, it looks like a pretty sweet guitar. Any thoughts on it?


www2.gibson.com/Products/Electric-Guitars/Les-Paul/Gibson-Custom/Les-Paul-Axcess-Standard.aspx

[sydsbluesky]

Looks nice... if you have way too much money to spend, I guess.

I'd probably opt for the Ibanez S prestige in about three different finishes for the same price... but at least they're thinkin!

[ijustwannastrat]

To me, a les paul needs a few things.

1: 2 humbuckers, 2 volumes, 2 tones
2: A carved top
3: A beautiful burst that it gonna get beaten
4: A bulky, ugly heel

I like that bit of struggle. When playing becomes TOO easy, I find that I get sloppy. It starts with my picking, and eventually my fretting goes to hell. My Schecter has an even thinner, smoother heel than this, and since I've been playing it more, I've noticed myself slopping it up.

[sydsbluesky]

Sad to say, but the LP does pretty much live in the case... I don't play any guitars that cost me more than 200 bucks for original purchase.... except the acoustic, but that's a different story!

I agree with strat, but I also don't like Gibsons that much! *gasp*

Starting to sound like Jack White, man.

Except that I think Jack White is full of fudge... he's not intentionally playing guitars that are hard to play... he's making the very fair trade of modern playability for 60s tone... and I'm sure the guy doesn't have a guitar tech on speed dial. *rolls eyes*

Some people like working with the guitar and some like working against it. Working against it might be the more manly approach... that whole "epic battle" thing goin' on there.. ya know?

Jack White may indeed do battle with his guitar. That having been said, Jimi Hendrix may have indeed made love with his guitar.

Red House, anyone? "That alright I still got my guitar..."

And when he played it live he proved it.



Hell, I just like small fret wire!

[lpf3]

I totally agree with i.j. wannastrat. I have a Tele that's set up a little stiff & can be a bit unforgiving. I think the fact that I have to work the thing really does come across in my playing. It's more expressive, seems to have a "feel" that I don't get from an easy guitar.


-lpf3

[dunkelfalke]

It is a step in the right direction, but I don't like Les Paul type guitars in first place.

[sydsbluesky]

I think where the "easy" guitars really loose their appeal to me is in the neck shape and fret wire choice.

ESP has thin U necks and etra jumbo fret wire... They're metal guitars built for heavy, fast rhythm and shred solos... I thinking they go for the "easy" thing, but for me it's hard. I like fat, baseball bat necks with tiny little fret wire.

I also like to use the heaviest production treble strings I can get mixed with medium wound strings... I'm starting to get the idea that I feel the same way lpf and strat feel, but I just call it something different... I dunno... Most of my jam buddies are heavy handed guitarists that like the same stuff I do. It just now really hit me that we all shun guitars made specifically for playability... Not to say that I don't set up all their guitars with action that would make a jackson proud!

I DO know that I'm surprised how many guys here don't dig the gibby LP thing. I didn't expect that when I came here at all, and it leaves me with one more question...

Anyone play an SG?

[ijustwannastrat]

I don't DISLIKE gibson, as much as I dislike their lack of quality, mixed in with the price for the "Gibson" inlay on the headstock.

I do think they are completely unoriginal, which isn't a BAD thing, it's just that they need to stop trying so fruitlessly.

Really, I'm still trying to figure out the difference between a Les Paul, a Les Paul Standard, a Les Paul Custom, a Les Paul Studio...

Thinking about it, I DO dislike gibson.

As for necks, I like thick necks for riffing. For soloing, my thumb mostly leaves the top of the neck, so it doesn't make much difference.


Oh yea! Has anybody ever played with scalloped frets? It's looking sort of like a cool idea to me. Maybe then, I could "unleash the fury!"


EDIT: I don't look at it as playing AGAINST the guitar, as much as I look at it like a love hate relationship. I play heavy strings, because I want to HEAR the effort in bending a step and a half. Those slow bends, where you just NEED to hear it reach it's peak. That's what I love. If you want a fast bend, you can just hammer to the next fret. Also, I need the guitar to be set up correctly. There's a difference between a SOB guitar, and an improperly adjusted guitar.

[lpf3]

syd-

"Anyone play an SG?"

Ha! When I was a kid, the "big kid" in the neighborhood had an SG and that became my mental image of "an electric guitar". - Fun memory.

That said- I love the way they look, the red mahogany & black pickguard; hanging around someone else's neck- but when I look down at them in the playing position those sharp contours make them look so skinny that they put me off in a way. I guess it's just me.....

-lpf3

[ijustwannastrat]

I love everything about the SG, except for that it isn't perfectly symmetrical. Seems like a silly reason to dislike a guitar. I guess if I'm giving my left leg to Gibson in return for a guitar, I might as well like how it looks.

[sydsbluesky]

First Gibson I ever played for more than a fleeting moment was an SG my friend owned back in high school. Loved the thing until I tried to strap it and stand up... The damn thing was neck heavy!

Strat, you should take a look at the ESP SG.. Viper, they call it. They really draw out the fact that it isn't symmetrical and use it to make the thing just look mean. I love their take on the SG... just hate their necks and frets... Maybe I'll be able to find an old one like I did with the M...

And yeah, I think the LP studio shouldn't exist. If I woke up after a night of heavy drinking and found one of those next to me in bed... I'd never forgive myself.

[sydsbluesky]

I played scalloped frets once... If you ask me, I'd never get em. Just bend the damn thing like a man!

It was an aftermarket neck for a strat... It was also left handed, so I maybe didn't give it a fair working over.

[ijustwannastrat]

I heard that you can play faster with a scalloped fretboard. Of course, you can also play faster by taking out the instrument every now and then and playing. A metronome does not hurt.

[sydsbluesky]

You mean practicing?

No, that's a myth. The only way to improve your playing is by getting more expensive gear... I thought we went over this!!

[ijustwannastrat]

Sorry, sometimes I feel at this rate, I'll never be an legendairy guitar god. My amp only goes to "5" (with "-5" being the other end of the spectrum). With that, I am designed to fail. Massive midrange scoop, though. I actually take away everybody elses midrange when I set it to -5

[sydsbluesky]

-5 is pretty far from 11, man.

[newey]

Well, we're a bit off topic, but silliness is perhaps the logical response to a $5300 guitar.

[chuck]

i guess i am a wimp because i prefer a guitar that i do not have to fight with , or bang the heck out of to play it ...

to me it is about creativity and the ability to express yourself ... and if you are busy fighting your guitar how relaxed and expressive can your playing be ?

that would be like trying to paint a masterpiece with with a 2" brush you just used to paint your house ....
you can do it , but is seems kind of silly .
BUT , to each their own ...

as for the Gibson SG ... i love 'em
... as long as they do not have the hideous full pick guard , and the neck sitting way out on the end of the body.
the little spacer on the body to fill in the area between the fretboard and the neck pickup seems rather moronic as well ...
add 2 more frets , or move the neck into the body a little more to eliminate the headstock heavy issue , and strengthen the neck/body joint.

i have 3 SGs .... an 80's 3 knob Special with the stronger neck joint and no stupid spacer , a 24 fret SG I , and a 24 fret Tony Iommi model.
i love all 3 of my SGs .

as for the LP Axcess ... its about time they corrected that design flaw !

but leave it to Gibson , they will find a way to screw it up.

just like the BEAUTIFUL SG Supremes ... they were batting a thousand ... 24 frets , figured maple top , amazing colors , then they put in horrible 57 Classic pickups .
... there they were , on a roll with modern features ... FINALLY moving away from the stick in the mud vintage mindset , and they cram in 57 Classic pickups .... ** sigh **

oh well .... at least they are making improvements from time to time

[BlackAngusYoung]

I know it isn't an official take-off... but isn't the Ibanez Darkstone actually an attempt at an evolved LP/SG kinda thing? It's powerful and modern, really heavy (I've been told,) short-scaled and has a really nice-looking neck. If the neck is the main attraction on the Axcess and you're looking at it to be a finally at-long-last-updated model... The Darkstone looks like it has as much going for it, if not more (coil tap)... and surely a better price.

I think I'm more into longer scales like a Strat and I kinda still like the vintage vibe of traditional designs, but Darkstone is certainly one of my favourite newer designs. This is what I'd get if I wanted a heavier alternative to my Les Paul that has PAF-style pickups in it. I wish there were a 25.5" scale model, though.

[Yew]

I have an SG! however I need some 11 guage strings for it... i play better on 11s...

also, those 57's are really nice pickups, however they might not be suited to that guitar..

[chuck]

oh , the 57s are nice pickups and well suited for the SG Supreme ... it is ME that they are ill suited for .
just not my cup o tea

[sumgai]

Apr 21, 2010 22:03:32 GMT -5 newey said:

Well, we're a bit off topic, but silliness is perhaps the logical response to a $5300 guitar.

Or more accurately, it's the appropriate response to a $1,300 guitar priced at $5,300.

[Yew]

surley there isnt 4000 big ones worth of work with a spokeshave and sandpaper there, i would do it you for 3999

[mlrpa]

I have given up on Gibson for the most part. Just as with Fender, it's the same reissue of reissue, of reissues, with a price tag that goes higher with each new color option. I am playing, as my "Paul" of choice, a '79 Electra X330, One piece mahogany body, baseball bat neck, brass nut, and funky cheesy '70's removable effects. And it weighs a ton! what more can you ask for?

[Yew]

Gibson to stop making stupid robots, and make their basic models right?

and more white SGs. with good bevels

[irwired]

Back in 1972 when the dinosaurs were little and the world was flat I bought a Gibson SJN for $225.00 with a hard case ;D
This is not my actual guitar I'm at work so i grabbed these off the web





I know the company history and all but WHAT HAPPENED

I guess it's kinda like selling the million dollar orange.............you only have to sell one

let's keep this to ourselves after all acoustics are for....... well

[4real]

Well, this thread is a little old, but i'll jump in with 2c since the exchange rate is good...

I'm not sure what the value of $225 in 1972 is now, it is 38 years ago...and an acoustic compared to an LP...well...

But that aside, the OP showed the back and focused on the neck join...but on the flip side, there are more features than that...



So an LP with the 'shredding' floyd and heal and a bit of a nod at body contouring.

I'm sure there s a market for such things and I'm not sure that this virtually custom instrument is that much dearer than the standard high end LP...

...

Leaving that aside...it has something to offer, classic looks with the 'playability' that the 'shredding' crowd demands.

I know for certain types of playing, the heal is a bit of a sticking point for some...but surely for those players, that upper bout extending to the 17th fret is going to bother them too!

Making such a join is going to structurally change the way an LP is constructed and such...probably not adversely if done right like this, but all the same...it doesn't look like they just carved into the thing!

What percentage of time do people really spend at the higher frets and need to take on a 'classical' technique really...hendrix played a strat...upside down...he got about...and only 21 frets...one less than this. He even played concerts on occasion with an upside down black LP! I really don't think that the contouring is that big an issue in reality...but there are plenty of alternatives for this kind of playing (generally pointy) that would better suit all around than a guitar like this which is something the opposite in intent.

But an LP is a very old design and very traditional. Jeff Beck recounts his days with the LP as exemplified on the cover of 'Blow by Blow'..and album that features a lot of fender on it and the classic 'lovers' being played on an HB tele not an LP. His analogy is that playing an LP is like driving a rolls royce...great for solid quality and performance...but if you want to go joy riding and scream around the corners, you want to be driving something like a fender strat you can toss about...or something like that.

My experience is similar with the things...and i played one for years, and recently gone back to them in another form. The LP feel is quite different from your average fender for sure.

OK...now this guitar...

A full floating trem is not an easy thing to put on one of these things, I'd imagine the neck and would have to be reduced or something to get the floyd so flat like that, consider how high a ToM sits above the top on your average LP...the spring cavity would reduce a fair bit of weight as well I would think...not a bad thing.

The LP gibson thing though is a bit of a compromise, a locking nut means the headstock doesn't really matter...but without, the fender flatter straight string through is a better option IMHO and designed around the fulcrum trem system.

But, if one really wanted trem features on an LP this isn't a bad idea...but it is really about looks and name...market forces will decide what people are going to pay...there are plenty of people who fetishize the gibson brand to buy something like this...much as there are plenty who will pay extra for a Harley and all the accessories when there are higher performance cheaper bikes about.

...

On the other hand, Gibson have a really bad record on a lot of fronts. Most of these guys are just redoing the old models instead of new things...and when they do come up with something new in design, gibson is one of the worst...corvus anyone? They should do something with a design like the V or explorer for this kind of thing...but then they wouldn't appeal to the LP aficionados that are the only guys that are going to be considering this kind of thing.

Personally I think my recent take on this kind of thing is a bit more successful with a Kahler...but then for many only a floyd will do! But even there there are compromises with the design and it's an LP after all.

There is something about the look and feel and weight and binding and carved top of strapping on an LP...a sound and a tradition. It feels different and you tend to play differently. And that's not such a bad thing...if you want to play a different style, perhaps you need a different tool and Gibson are not the makers of such tools.

Anyway, it is not so bad and comparable to other gibson products. Even a company like PRS that simply took the best features of the big 2 to make a successful hybrid just repeat on their successful theme...they don't have a floyd shreddy version as far as I recall.

If I were to do something like this, I'd go a lot further, change the controls and headstock perhaps...but then it would no longer be an LP!

I don't know what gibson are thinking with things like the robot and such...they have some odd ideas sometimes. I did see J.Page playing a those older tuning LP things in concert once to good effect though. One wonders though if something like the fender V thing that uses digital tuning isn't more the future than actually pulling on the strings physically though...and opens the doors to synth stuff.


Personally though, if you take away the branding, there are a lot of perfectly good CNC carved guitars out there in the mid range that can or could do the job...but they wouldn't be a gibson or an LP as such...and that is where the money is!

[4real]

Nov 18, 2010 7:08:07 GMT -5 Yew said:

Gibson to stop making stupid robots, and make their basic models right?

and more white SGs. with good bevels

Hahaha

My first guitar was a 'law suit' ibanez SG in white, gold hardware and a bigsby trem with three humbuckers and all the 'bling'...

All SG's have 'rubber necks' from the join there and structuarlly weak in many ways...and generally balance problems...it's a classic "look" but really not their greatest thing. Les Paul himself sued them to get his name taken off of the things and the original idea for them was to make a cheap alternative to the LP....in the heydays of the sixties when 'clapton was god' and forming the template of the marshall/LP sound with the Beano album...Gibson were not even making the things!!!!

The firebird was supposed to be a 'fender killer'...but again, significant structural and balance problems and none of the design integration evident in the strat...but by then they were using car designers to create the things, in an era where adding 'fins' to the things made the things 'go faster'....lol

There is something about the firebird "look" as well of course...the headstock thing with the eagle beak is cool...but for goodness sake, to get it it only really works with banjo tuners...LOL

[irwired]

I'm not sure what the value of $225 in 1972 is now, it is 38 years ago...and an acoustic compared to an LP...well...

Your point is well taken so i did a little resaerch.........albeit after the fact.
My apologies for the assumptions i made in the previous post.

The point i was trying to make is that Gibson prices seem to have risen out of proportion to the general rate of inflation.
$225.00 In todays dollars according to the Money website is worth $1180.00 approximately. The comparable Gibson sells (street price) 1999.00. The average rate of inflation between 1972 and 2010 was 5.25% the. Gibson's price has risen 12.5% over the same period.
It would be interesting to see what has happened to LP prices over the same period

I can only regret not having stockpiled some nice vintage axes when i had the chance to get em right

Cheers
IRW

[4real]

Nov 18, 2010 19:04:42 GMT -5 irwired said:

I'm not sure what the value of $225 in 1972 is now, it is 38 years ago...and an acoustic compared to an LP...well...

Your point is well taken so i did a little resaerch.........albeit after the fact.
My apologies for the assumptions i made in the previous post.

The point i was trying to make is that Gibson prices seem to have risen out of proportion to the general rate of inflation.
$225.00 In todays dollars according to the Money website is worth $1180.00 approximately. The comparable Gibson sells (street price) 1999.00. The average rate of inflation between 1972 and 2010 was 5.25% the. Gibson's price has risen 12.5% over the same period.
It would be interesting to see what has happened to LP prices over the same period

I can only regret not having stockpiled some nice vintage axes when i had the chance to get em right

Cheers
IRW

No need to apologize, but it is something worth discussing as gibson do get hit on the price thing a lot.

Well...not sure how you arrived at that figure, but it is not that far off. Really, average rates of inflation is just that, an average...not equal across all products. So, these things went through a huge re-evaluation through the 'vintage' era and the perceived value of such items and so, their real value to the buyer is far more than the average. People are prepared to pay extra for say a gibson because of the perception that just that fact will be enough to increase over time dramatically...or at least hold value.

On a personal note...I bought my '69 LP Custom in black in the late seventies second hand for $500...the thing is now insured for $5,000 and too valuable to take out!

A decade or so later, I was asking my wife if I could buy up fender amps...I was seeing s/h twins and others for far less than $500 in decent condition and working order...she said no, imagine the profit on them a few years later after the 80's shred had subsided.

The whole gibson price thing is twisted in different ways...i have problems with them...but more on other issues than just price. But this is the nature of market forces and it is not fair to use average inflation (largely based on things like cost of living) with luxury items like this.

A gibson SJN is not going to rise in value compared to an LP of the same era...even within the brand this is not a balanced comparison.

But yes, one could and many did make a killing off of these things.

...

The thing is with these things, do you want a practical guitar to play for you, or do you want an icon and brand...investment or heirloom?

You can buy or put together a real player, may even look similar, do more things and set up to your specs for far less...my new LP is a perfect example, in performance directly comparable to this, plus trick wiring and a more reliable full floating trem...$500-700 max! However, it is not a gibson...but then that can be a good thing too.

The same applies to my tele...it's a squier, but every component and the custom paint is at or exceeds the factory specs of the high end fenders and it is unique. There are differences of course, but not enough to be that better a player for that kind of instrument.

If you have serious money, you could get an even better guitar than a gibson custom made...but the value would not hold in general...except to the person it was built for.

There are some amazing LP copies out there that look the part and play fantastic. A guy showed me his Edwards last year that was lightly reliced (brushed the chrome and such) and it was just superb in both looks and as a player...absolutely stunning!

So, even though I actually own a 'vintage' LP...I seriously have not played in about a decade...these cheaper guitars I use may not be quite the quality (far from it) but they have the general "look" for any audience and unique features and a set up designed specifically for me...gibson will not be doing that!

But there is a reason that these 'classic' guitars are still out there, they are classics and nothing better has really been devised...just variations on the theme of the old LP, explorer, 335 kind of thing in the gibson camp and the strat, tele kind of thing in the fender...most things even the PRS are variations and hybrids and so it has always been. These things seem to virtually 'define' the solidbody electric after all.

I mean, your typical shredding machine is not called a 'superstrat' for nothing...it's basically a strat with some extra contours and a few HB's thrown in there, a bit of trem refinement...and that's it. The originals like Vai's green machine or EVH's Frankenstein were exactly...simply part-casters.

As for the heel contour...hmmm...maybe there is a conspiracy to try to stop excessive use of the upper range of the guitar by lead obsessed players and concentrate of the 90+% of use that the rest of the fretboard offers below the 17th fret! LOL