peeninety
Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2002
- Messages
- 297
I kinda find it odd the general aversion to "weight relief". I have never found anything about weight relieved Les Pauls to be lacking tone wise. Is it the hyper attraction of a 50's spec that carries so much , ahem.., weight? :hmm
I've no reason to doubt your experience, even though mine differs.
I've found only two LPs that I couldn't love: both sounded harsh, thin, and brittle to me, and both made a horrible little warbling sound under my vibrato.
These two fiddles wound up stored under my bed, ignored for years, until I joined this forum and read about Gibson's weight-relief practices.
Curious, I pulled the two offensive LPs from under the bed so I could get reacquainted. Both still sounded ugly--brittle, harsh, and thin--to my ears, and both still made that unflattering, warbling sound under my vibrato.
I then played some non-weight-relieved LPs side-by-side for comparison: two 1950s-era LP Jrs, a 1974 Deluxe, three 1980s-era Deluxes, a 1981 Standard, an R4, and an R8. The non-weight-relieved fiddles all sounded warm and soft to me, and none made that horrible little warble under vibrato.
The two brittle fiddles? A 1996 LP Gem and a 2000 LP Classic. I sold the latter to a buddy who totally loves it, and I still have the Gem.
My conclusion? There's nothing at all wrong with weight relieving a LP. I think the physical way I play requires more mass than a weight-relieved LP has, and I also think that my--pretty heavy--touch has as much to do with the ugly warbling sound and brittle tone I experienced.
Full disclosure: I once tried out a buddy's brand new PRS at a gig, and that thing flexed so much I had to put it down after one tune. It would not stay in tune.
I'm not a Gorilla, but I guess I hold a guitar like one!