• 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!

PRS and Gibson

rays44

Active member
Joined
Jul 24, 2001
Messages
2,911
Why can't they occupy the same space. I don;t see anywhere near the same disdain for Fenders, Knaggs, Dusenbergs, etc. Why does PRS get slammed so much around here. They;re mostly good guitars, well made and cover alot of sonic ground. I don't own any, but every solid rosewood neck model I ever tried played and sounded great. Apples and oranges from Les Pauls, so what;s the rub. Both are great guitars.:fu
 

shred

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2003
Messages
4,667
I've owned 4 and they were great guitars. I would love to have a PRS private stock guitar to complement my LPs sometime.

Aesthetically, I like Gibson for single cuts and PRS for double cuts.
 
Last edited:

Minibucker

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 12, 2003
Messages
6,372
Why can't they occupy the same space. I don;t see anywhere near the same disdain for Fenders, Knaggs, Dusenbergs, etc. Why does PRS get slammed so much around here. They;re mostly good guitars, well made and cover alot of sonic ground. I don't own any, but every solid rosewood neck model I ever tried played and sounded great. Apples and oranges from Les Pauls, so what;s the rub. Both are great guitars.:fu
Ruffled feathers, I guess. Only PRS I've ever liked is probably a McCarty P90.
 

Texas Blues

Active member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
4,641
I reckon subconsciously I think of 2 distinct guitar sounds, one being Gibson and the other Fender. To me, PRS is neither and rather generic and sterile in tone. PRS are well built and play fine but they just don't jump out and grab me tone wise.
 

6950whead

New member
Joined
Oct 13, 2013
Messages
337
I reckon subconsciously I think of 2 distinct guitar sounds, one being Gibson and the other Fender. To me, PRS is neither and rather generic and sterile in tone. PRS are well built and play fine but they just don't jump out and grab me tone wise.

+1

PRSs are very well made, no doubt, but I'm just not a fan of their sound. I've always assumed it was due to the use of soft maple on PRSs vs eastern hard maple on Les Pauls. Whatever the reason, to my ears, the PRS sounds a bit, well, soft...with less of an ability to 'cut through' if you will. I've generally felt as though they were missing both the balls of a Paul and the bell-like quality of a good single coil, which resulted in a rather homogenized tonal character. Bottom line, I've played many over the decades and recorded more than a few...they just never grabbed me. Highly subjective of course!

Then there's the look. I'm told that soft maple has to be color stained to see the figuring. I'm just not intuitively attracted to the colors of PRS tops. Aesthetically, I much prefer the look of hard maple.

Lastly, I'm a finger style acoustic player more than anything (blasphemy around here!!!). I've enjoy some very fine instruments from builders like Olson, Wingert, Goodall, Walker, etc. I was excited to see PRS enter that market but highly disappointed in their offerings. Way to heavy, unbalanced and lacking harmonic nuance...downright sterile, which, after the fact, sort of reminded me of their electrics. That was the last straw for PRS for me.

But hey, that's my hands and my ears. I respect that's not everyone's take.
 

JJC

New member
Joined
Feb 25, 2008
Messages
1,027
When Paul Reed Smith first began building guitars, he often spoke in interviews of the qualities and materials in vintage Gibson's as well as his design changes and improvements over how they were currently building. So he was really positioning himself as a competitor to Gibson and the Les Paul in general. As a result, being on a Gibson Les Paul forum, you're going to get the arguments that a PRS doesn't match up. I would suspect on the PRS forum you'll get the argument that it does (and more). People who see them as separate will appreciate both.
 

MCHolley

Member
Joined
May 30, 2004
Messages
600
My perspective,

Honestly, I haven't played one that I'd rather play, let alone own over my Gibson or Fender guitars...

I spent some time with Paul this year, really nice guy. He knows that PRS isn't in everyone's emotional wheelhouse, and that is why he keeps going knowing that to new or younger guitar players, they won't have the same attachment to Gibson and Fender that some of the guys who've been around....we grew up watching guys make our favorite music with those guitars, not his.

That being said, he makes a really nice guitar, they just don't feel like "home" to me. I doubt I'll ever own one to be honest.

Mark
 

Scott Cioe

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2002
Messages
884
I've owned a few over the years including a mid-90's Standard Mapletop, early 2000's Swamp Ash Special and just recently (because of a hell of a deal) a new Santana.
The only one that I regret selling is actually the mid-90's Standard - I think that I was comparing that one to the other main guitar that I was using at that time, which was a Les Paul standard from about the same year.
Problem is that you shouldn't compare the two; I should have looked at it more like the way an SG compliments a Les Paul.
With that said, I kind of echo the comments above where, at the end of the day, I would rather reach for a Gibson or Fender...Not in-between with the PRS.
On a side note...I kind of have the same problem going on with a Gretsch Setzer Hot Rod; As cool as it is, I typically ignore it in favor of my 335!
 

lanman

New member
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
1,480
Although I never played one, every single time I see and hear one played live.....especially played by someone who formerly played Gibson Guitars....I just don't get it. Laking in both balls and tone ("sterile" being the best descriptive word as mentioned by TB), I figure that they just must be a quality guitar that just feels good to play and players feel they are an upgrade to the same 'ol. I can't understand why they can't seem to hear what I am hearing and my ear is shallow to begin with. I started to watch a Pat Travers Live show a couple months back and simply turned it off. It was a real WTF? moment. Why?? His whole deal is playing Monster in your face Rock and Roll. Sounded like he was trying to do this with a Guitar best suited for Jazz and it did not work for me at all.
 

Minibucker

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 12, 2003
Messages
6,372
I've always felt that PRS's don't have the kind of inherent tonal character as a Gibson or a Fender....but ergonomically/tool-wise perhaps, they make a better starting 'platform' than either for more modern tone shaping via effects et al.
 
Y

yeti

Guest
I think that folks make way to much of the "supposed" differences between the wannabe (PRS) and the real thing (Gibson Les Paul).
To my ears a PRS SC McCarthy can sound like a Lester no problem. If you can tell the difference from listening alone you're a better man than me.
My main bone of contention with them is that many of them, especially the private stock guitars are fugly, gaudy finishes and ostentatious tops dipped in blue, purple or green, yuk.
But I wouldn't mind a nice DGT in tobacco Sunburst, that's pretty nice looking.
 

Minibucker

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 12, 2003
Messages
6,372
That's the other thing...I've never found any PRS attractive except perhaps a Goldtop (of which I like a Gibson better), or a plain Korina. A lot of their finishes look like velvet paintings.
 

Ryan Givhan

New member
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
3,220
besides the fact that i dont like the way they look, the sound is just not what im looking for, they sound squished and weak to me. ymmv
 

Elmore

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2003
Messages
1,853
A PRS McCarty to me is a tone specialist. A Gibson Les Paul does it all.
 
Last edited:

Minibucker

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 12, 2003
Messages
6,372
I actually like some of their SE line better than their premium ones.
 

trmckn

New member
Joined
Jun 25, 2011
Messages
335
I happen to have both and really like both. To the OP's original question though, it seems reasonable that a site dedicated to people who really love Les Pauls isn't really populated with a ton of people who dig PRS. Nothing wrong with that. I actually go out of my way not to post stuff in the amp section here that features a PRS guitar since it isn't particularly relevant here. I'd no more replace my Les Pauls with a PRS single cut than I woluld replace my SC-Ted with a Knaggs...or replace my Knaggs with whatever. There is something unique with Les Pauls though (vintage or historic) and I definitely see where folks who are all over that wouldn't be particularly jazzed with other variants. I don't agree with the sentiment that PRS guitars don't have soul though. They just have a different soul, which isn't to many people's tastes.
 

58junior

New member
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
868
I have an sc58 that is very nice and similar to my les pauls. The build quality and neck stability, and finish is perfect. I do like my latest R9 better, but at $6k the Gibson CS guitars are getting too expensive.
 
Last edited:

Big Al

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
14,537
I think they are beautifully designed and play and sound wonderful. Paul is very good at what he does and these guitars are excellent.
 

7thStar

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2002
Messages
166
I can appreciate a good PRS, however my R8 just feels like 'home' and does a fine and reliable job of getting good tone every time out...I suppose I'm just used to LP's. I played a number of the early PRS instruments in the 80's and loved the construction and attention to detail, they're very well made...but as others have said, for me a little tonally neutral.

As an aside, I was buying a new Wah on the weekend and Paul himself was in the store doing a demo 'jam'...I don't think he minded me joining in too much ;) He's a pretty good player from what I heard there.
 
Top