• 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!

Les Paul design

singlecut 54

New member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
197
Both Les Paul and Gibson [Ted McCartys team] lay claim, it was they who designed the original Les Paul guitar.But who thinks Les would have a more obvious claim to inventing the ''335'' concept.His ''log'' guitar having a solid centre section and wings .Does anyone know or have thoughts on the design of either guitar.
 
Last edited:

lpdeluxe

New member
Joined
May 15, 2005
Messages
417
Personally, I favor Ted McCarty and his team. It's obvious from the Gibsons produced in the '50s that they were remarkably creative, especially in comparison to later years, when most of the new stuff looked goofy (corvus guitar, anyone?).

Les Paul's efforts had been directed toward electrics that looked like traditional archtops, and, in looking at photos of the "log" guitar, I'm not convinced that his woodworking skills were particularly sophisticated.

In contrast, the solid body LP was, from the first, quite nicely put together (with the exception of the upside-down tailpiece-bridge), with a laminated body and a carved top, both of which were easily built by the Gibson crew at the time.

How much of its appearance was due to one side or the other is difficult to say, but certainly both Gibson and Les Paul were looking toward the acoustic f-hole for inspiration, as opposed to Leo Fender's pragmatic make-it-work approach. There are NO design features on the LP that says "this is a signature detail" of either McCarty or Paul.

Mr Paul seems to have been responsible for the gold top finish, but I lean toward Gibson as the ultimate designer.
 

scozz50

New member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Messages
284
Personally, I favor Ted McCarty and his team. It's obvious from the Gibsons produced in the '50s that they were remarkably creative, especially in comparison to later years, when most of the new stuff looked goofy (corvus guitar, anyone?).

Les Paul's efforts had been directed toward electrics that looked like traditional archtops, and, in looking at photos of the "log" guitar, I'm not convinced that his woodworking skills were particularly sophisticated.

In contrast, the solid body LP was, from the first, quite nicely put together (with the exception of the upside-down tailpiece-bridge), with a laminated body and a carved top, both of which were easily built by the Gibson crew at the time.

How much of its appearance was due to one side or the other is difficult to say, but certainly both Gibson and Les Paul were looking toward the acoustic f-hole for inspiration, as opposed to Leo Fender's pragmatic make-it-work approach. There are NO design features on the LP that says "this is a signature detail" of either McCarty or Paul.

Mr Paul seems to have been responsible for the gold top finish, but I lean toward Gibson as the ultimate designer.

+1

From what I've read Ted McCarty of Gibson had much more to do with the design of the LP than Les Paul. McCarty presented a prototype LP to Les Paul and he loved it. This prototype was said to be very close to the design we have today.
 

burstbucker1

New member
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
312
McCarty designed the body of the Les Paul after a atomic explosion..the only things Les had to do with the design of the Les Paul was the tail piece and adding the maple cap..but Les had first wanted the body to be maple with a mahogany cap, which would have made the guitar to heavy..

800px-Nuclearlespaul.jpg
 

lpdeluxe

New member
Joined
May 15, 2005
Messages
417
Hmmm...that may be a bit far-fetched. So that means the archtops of the '30s were designed after the atomic explosion, as well? Because they have the same shape as the LP.

There is one piece of evidence that really convinces me that McCarty was responsible for the Les Paul: the fact that it used a Les Paul - designed tailpiece/bridge that was poorly integrated into the guitar, so that string muting was impossible in the normal manner.

A man of the inventiveness of Paul would have flogged that until he got it right; instead, it was added onto Gibson's own design at the last moment (at Mr Paul's insistence), after all the tooling and jigs had been completed, and it was too late to change the neck angle to make it work.

Of course, I can't prove all the elements of that last statement, but it makes sense as a reconstruction of the history of the guitar. Otherwise this obvious flaw would never have been incorporated into the Les Paul guitar. It wasn't too long before Gibson abandoned the idea, and went with the first stud bridge/string anchor.

A R Duchossoir, in his Gibson Electrics Vol 1 gives a chronology of the Les Paul as developed by Gibson. He points out that Gibson wanted the carved top because makers of more rudimentary electrics -- read Fender -- couldn't possibly afford the tooling to do that, and it made the guitar look more traditional. He also says that Ted McCarty told him that the prototype was already painted gold when first shown to Les Paul.

Duchossoir goes on to relate "[a]fter briefly playing on the prototype Les Paul, according to Ted MacCarty (sic), said the following words to Mary Ford: 'I think we should join them, because they are really getting too close!'"

A later paragraph reads "Ted MacCarty (sic) asked Les Paul if he had any suggestions regarding the prototype, and Les proposed the new combination bridge-tailpiece he had just perfected." As noted, the Les Paul bridge was replaced with a Gibson-designed stud bridge at the end of 1953, with a change in the neck angle to accommodate it.

Of course, all this is evidently based on the testimony of Mr McCarty (Duchossoir doesn't give sources) but it is reasonable to assume that, if, as stated in the book, development began in 1950 at Gibson and Les Paul was contacted in 1952 to give his blessing, that this version is internally consistent and makes more sense than the idea that Les Paul, busy as he was with his self-recorded hits, radio and television shows, would have had the time to develop the guitar in any detail.

In the end, it's the awkwardness of the Les Paul trapeze bridge that convinces me.
 

Kap'n

New member
Joined
Jan 2, 2002
Messages
1,678
Of course, all this is evidently based on the testimony of Mr McCarty (Duchossoir doesn't give sources) but it is reasonable to assume that, if, as stated in the book, development began in 1950 at Gibson

I'm pretty much in agreement with what's been said. However, I would guess that if they started work on the LP in 1950, it would have been very late in the year. Fender first promoted the Broadcaster in April 1950, and the earliest most folks in the industry would have seen one (without a truss rod) would be at the July 1950 NAMM in Chicago. I suspect most of the senior folks from Kalamazoo were there, due to proximity. I suspect most shows of this sort tended to be in East Coast venues, like NY and Philadelphia.

The Broadcaster was roundly ridiculed in the industry at the time. I would think it would have taken some evidence of it's success before any serious work would have started.

On the other hand, that makes the development time seem even more impressive. :salude
 

burstbucker1

New member
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
312
Hmmm...that may be a bit far-fetched. So that means the archtops of the '30s were designed after the atomic explosion, as well? Because they have the same shape as the LP.

far fetched or not..it's the truth according to Gibson..heck, the pick i posted came directly off Gibsons site..
 

Minibucker

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 12, 2003
Messages
6,372
far fetched or not..it's the truth according to Gibson..heck, the pick i posted came directly off Gibsons site..

I saw that pic on their site too...right next to the info about the waterfront property in Florida they're offering at pennies on the dollar....
 

Ad_02Std

Active member
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
5,055
That pic was a Gibson promotional image. There were a few in the series; a Flying V next to a ladies legs, an SG and something vaguely Satanic (can't quite remember that one). Anyway, I'm sure he was joking about the mushroom cloud being the inspirition for the shape of the Les Paul.
 

Danny

Les Paul Forum Member, Formerly Musicinmysoul
Joined
Jun 10, 2006
Messages
1,875
Besides...the cloud looks more like a 335 to me anyway!

atom_bomb_2.jpg
atomicbomb3.jpg


Eh???
 

burstbucker1

New member
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
312
I'm sure he was joking about the mushroom cloud being the inspiration for the shape of the Les Paul

and the Gibson head stock was not designed after a open book either..
 

Ad_02Std

Active member
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
5,055
Eh I suppose so, I never thought to think of the midge-er...little person 335.

It definitely looks more like an ES than a Les Paul. In fact looks like it has a vibrato of some sort. I'm going with a 355 or CS-356.
 

burstbucker1

New member
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
312
No. It was designed after this chaps moustache.

:rofl good stuff..the add was on Gibson's site..and i remember the Flying V add also..but i also remember the article discussing how these images lead to the shape of these guitars..now is that what really inspired these guitars..i have no way of knowing..i just took Gibson for their word..i just took Gibson for a reputable infosource.. :hmm but if it is not the source of the shape design, someone must know and i'd like to know also..i'll contact Gibson tomorrow and let ya know what i find out..
 

Trans-Am

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 15, 2001
Messages
4,686
... or was it the moustache design for the Gibson Jumbo Acoustic instead?

Peace:hank
 

lpdeluxe

New member
Joined
May 15, 2005
Messages
417
Hah! I didn't know about that. But seriously, folks, the LP is a miniature archtop in shape, and, following Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is preferred.

Anyhow, the chronology of the early LP design is not well defined. Duchossoir had access to Gibson's records, and it's not surprising, given Gibson's lack of documentation of serial numbers (and whether that elusive Moderne ever shipped in 1958), that he didn't discover any smoking gun on the Les Paul. So he had to rely on the memory of persons speaking 30 years after the fact (his book was published in 1981) and it wouldn't shock me to hear that McCarty was a little off on the time frame.

In Tom Wheeler's American Guitars, he reprinted an interview with Leo Fender (from Guitar Player magazine) in which Fender says he started developing the Strat in 1951; everyone else says 1952 or 1953.

As remarked above, it was a remarkable achievement, especially given the lack of respect given the Fender instruments at the time.
 

Shidoin

New member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
83
I think the shape of the Les Paul owes more than a little to Paul Bigsby's original solid body guitars. I would find it hard to believe that
Ted and Les were unaware of Bigsby's pioneering design; His guitars were played by top stars before Leo came out with the Broadcaster.
Bigsby is the unsung hero of us solid body fans.
 

lpdeluxe

New member
Joined
May 15, 2005
Messages
417
That's probably true, but neither shape is all that distinctive, in my opinion. I mean, it's basically a standard guitar shape that was shrunk so it wouldn't weigh a ton.

There were other electric guitars around at the time, notably the App by O W Appleton, which was slightly larger than the LP with an arched solid maple body with routed rounded edges instead of the binding on the Gibson. It was built in the winter of '41-42, predating the Bigsby, and was 3-1/2" thick at the highest point and 1/2" wider than the Les Paul. The builder claimed to have shown it to Gibson.

Bigsby was a tool and die maker, and the aluminum castings he designed for the Crocker motorcycle (made in Los Angeles 1936-40 or thereabouts) are works of art. A friend had two of them and they put the Indians and H-Ds of the period to shame: the design was integrated in a way that made them stand out.

I think the fancy trim on the Bigsby was Travis' doing -- he was an amateur cartoonist, and no doubt prided himself on the curlicues.

Of course, since it was Merle Travis, the guitar was highly visible in the late '40s - early '50s, and surely everyone was aware of it.

The LP, in contrast, is what you would expect from Gibson: well thought out, with traditional decorative features that had already appeared on Gibsons. And, it was much easier to manufacture than Bigsby's ornate handiwork.

But Fender, for all his quirks, made something more original...but he wasn't much of a graphic designer, so the early guitars and basses look (as some one put it) "like they'd been built in a high school wood shop class." It wasn't until he hired Freddy Tavares that his instruments started looking like they'd been designed by someone with talent for it...and even then, he copied (again, in my opinion) Bigsby's peghead shape for the second-generation Precision and the Strat and subsequent models.

Me, I have four Fender basses (including a reissue of the original rowboat P) but the only electric guitar I own is my LP Deluxe. Second place is 'way back.
 
Top