• Guys, we've spent considerable money converting the Les Paul Forum to this new XenForo platform, and we have ongoing monthly operating expenses. THE "DONATIONS" TAB IS NOW WORKING, AND WE WOULD APPRECIATE ANY DONATIONS YOU CAN MAKE TO KEEP THE LES PAUL FORUM GOING! Thank you!

I find this interesting.

Elliot Easton

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 5, 2003
Messages
3,478
What is the reason for the current preoccupation with big fat necks? Growing up, all the finest guitars used "slim, fast-action neck" in their literature, and I grew up coveting such necks. There seems to have been a quantum shift in preference over the last few years. I do understand the physics of a hand-filling neck giving support and therefore less cramps but it never seemed like an issue over the last 50 years. Are people's hands bigger now? I would never want a big, clubby neck, so naturally I'm curious as to the attraction. If a bigger neck means a bigger note, then you'd be able to tell the tone of a '58 Paul from a '60, which I seriously doubt one can do, so what's the big deal?
 

moonweasel

New member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
9,427
I can switch back and forth with no problem; so I don't gravitate one way or another. I grew up on Kramers with super thin necks and figured I would give fat a shot when I bought my R4. Love 'em both.
 

Wilko

All Access/Backstage Pass
Joined
Mar 11, 2002
Messages
20,854
for a lot of us, the big neck preference has more to with the stiffness in trying to get that "magical" balance of sustain and resonance and such. The necks don't need to be "huge" but close to what worked in the late '50s is sort of in fashion.
 

Elliot Easton

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 5, 2003
Messages
3,478
Thanks for responding. I do a lot of legato playing, skating around the neck and playing lots of pull-offs and hammer-ons. I find a slimmer neck and low action easier to play for a lot of what I do.
 

Heritage 80

New member
Joined
Jan 10, 2002
Messages
7,000
I think it's the cramping factor. I'd say that as the median age of guitarists goes up (I don't have evidence of this but I believe it's true), the better a fat neck is. That said my preference is and has always been a medium sized neck without the prominent shoulders of the Historics.
 

FretsAlot

New member
Joined
Jan 22, 2003
Messages
931
I've gone from one extreme to the other. I have a very slim necked '76 LP Custom that I've had since the mid-80's, and when I first got interested in the LPri's I somehow really liked the baseball bat neck on the '57. After having my '57ri for 8 years, now I want a little of both and fight with myself about finding a '58 or '59 ri with a neck that is inbetween. I play my '57ri the most due to it's weight, feel, and tone...

Fretsalot/Scott
 

KennyY

New member
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
742
The next Les Paul I'm planning to get is a 60RI.

For awhile I've bought into the idea that bigger necks are better and ended up going through two 59RI, a 58RI and a 57RI Les Pauls only not to find them not enjoyable to play (OK if you're going to play chords all day), kinda like wearing clothes that are way too big and find it awkward to move around.
 

KennyY

New member
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
742
Another question, is the neck on the 60 RI close to a SG? I have an EDS-1275 and I find the necks a perfect thickness.
 

Les'isMorePaul

New member
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
162
It may have more to do with the increasing age of the players and that thicker necks can be less painful from an arthritis perspective?

I still like thinner necks.
 

goldtop0

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
8,931
I gravitated to a bigger '59 type neck this year, the 60 slim taper was just too shallow and not enough of a handful.I'm no spring chicken so the less pain and numbing in the left hand at gigs and practice the better, the bigger neck fills that bill.
 

J T

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
10,502
My hand is less stressed with a bigger neck. I can play for longer times with the 59 neck than with the Slim Neck. I think it's because my thumb is just that further bit away from my fingertips to hit the sweet spot in that doesn't cramp my forearm.

The bigger curve fits right into the curve between my thumb and my finger and the barre chords feel better.

I definitely feel the difference between the LP Classic and the R9 and just on neck feel, the R9 feels better to me.
 

marshall1987

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
3,278
For me slim taper necks flex too much and lack the necessary depth to get a good grip, especially true with bar chords. I don't really like baseball bat necks with big shoulders, rather prefer a medium/large neck (0.90" at the first fret; 0.95" at 12 fret) with a soft V shape.

I think all things being equal a fat neck will sound fuller and bigger.
 

roycaster

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2002
Messages
316
I think people stopped playing out of real amps; the “Oh my Blues Jr is so LOUD” phenomena took over. And then somebody on the internet said “bigger necks have bigger tone” and that brought us here.
 

Greco

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Messages
2,181
Well I blame Joe Bonamassa. Well partly, in all seriousness. I think you had a general trend in the 60s-80s where everyone generally followed the same guitar heros (Jimmy, Jimi, Clapton, etc). The trend was to play as thin strings as possible and a thin neck to play as fast as possible. However, pursuing this took us to a rather unexpected place - Shredding.

Shredding is like Marmite. Many people recoiled in horror and became fans of other more sparse players like Kossoff. These players used massive strings and played one note every few hours, like they had a big slow piano strapped round their shoulders. You can't put fat strings on a pencil neck guitar, at least, there would be no point. Much better to put your bridge cables on a big old fat log of a neck. Joe Bonamassa follows in this vain, being he is the poster boy for all things Les Paul, plays 11s, and a massive fan of Kossoff. A large amount of Les Paul players want 11s to get that tone and a fat neck just seems to go well with fat strings.

Plus it was only recently (the last 20 years) that Gibson and Fender started reissuing guitars from the 50s with giant boat and baseball bat necks. In Gibsons case far bigger necks that any guitar actually had in the 50s but because it is on a reissue (top of the line) guitar people think it's something to covert.
 

J.D.

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
10,030
I found it easier to learn on smaller necks with big frets and light strings, especially barre chords, when I was young but now I prefer larger (really "medium" profile) necks with pretty much medium sized frets and slightly heavier strings. I never did care for the really small "vintage" fretwire or the "fretless wonder" frets, nor the narrower "Norlin" width fretboards, as my fingers and hands are above average size (based on my glove size).
 

jimmi

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2012
Messages
2,077
It is all about perspective. For exmaple, this is a thin neck:

8338930294_c6e7123d9c.jpg


It is off an Ibanez I bought in the 80s. Stays in tune, very good sound from it actually.

For Gibsons I like either the early 50s necks or the 60s.

For comparison here is one of my 50s guitars
8743158876_264e141860.jpg


Actually not a huge difference. Really just the center of the neck that is thicker. It is the shoulders that is the killer.

I hate the r8/9 necks with the big shoulders. I have played many 50s guitars and never seen one that is shaped like those. You don't need a 2x4 that gives you carpel tunnel for it to sound great.
 

Don

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Messages
5,732
I always wanted an electric guitar with a big soft V shaped neck like the one on the Yamaha acoustic that I learned on it the late '70s. It just felt like "home" for me.

I have average sized hands and enjoy all but the smallest necks.

I play through "real" amps, btw.
 
Last edited:

Cottage

New member
Joined
Oct 25, 2002
Messages
582
Nice thin 60s lp necks for me. I tried a Nocaster the other day with a neck like half a baseball
bat. Not at all comfy for me, that's for sure.
 

Les'isMorePaul

New member
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
162
Well I blame Joe Bonamassa. Well partly, in all seriousness. I think you had a general trend in the 60s-80s where everyone generally followed the same guitar heros (Jimmy, Jimi, Clapton, etc). The trend was to play as thin strings as possible and a thin neck to play as fast as possible. However, pursuing this took us to a rather unexpected place - Shredding.

Shredding is like Marmite. Many people recoiled in horror and became fans of other more sparse players like Kossoff. These players used massive strings and played one note every few hours, like they had a big slow piano strapped round their shoulders. You can't put fat strings on a pencil neck guitar, at least, there would be no point. Much better to put your bridge cables on a big old fat log of a neck. Joe Bonamassa follows in this vain, being he is the poster boy for all things Les Paul, plays 11s, and a massive fan of Kossoff. A large amount of Les Paul players want 11s to get that tone and a fat neck just seems to go well with fat strings.

Plus it was only recently (the last 20 years) that Gibson and Fender started reissuing guitars from the 50s with giant boat and baseball bat necks. In Gibsons case far bigger necks that any guitar actually had in the 50s but because it is on a reissue (top of the line) guitar people think it's something to covert.

Good theory.
I'd say SRV before JB though.
 
Top