It's no secret that the Les Paul was Gibson's solid body response to Leo's telecaster, but I have always considered the two guitars completely different. Because of that, I have struggled on several occasions to bond w/ a tele. I have always like the idea of a tele in the past, but often found myself trying to play it like I do a strat (I guess because of the neck length and radius), and that has not worked out for me. I have also seen a lot of country players gravitating toward the tele, and that has not been a genre I care about, so I don't try and emulate that style.
Recently, I bought a '60 tele. I find the telecaster to be a beautiful instrument and have continued to try and find the right one. I found the right one in this guitar.
So why am I posting this here, instead of the fender area? Well, because the more I play the tele, the more I am hearing similar characteristics to my Les Paul. Notice I said 'characteristics' and not anything that says they equate. The tonal characteristic's seem very similar, while holding and playing the instrument is very different.
So I am wondering, was the original intent of the original Les Paul Gibson's way of doing Leo's tele, much like early Marshall's were similar to Leo's amps?
I just can't help but think that the two instruments are more alike than different. It has really changed the way I play the tele.
Mind you, I don't find the modern tele's vs. modern Les Paul's to be as similar as the vintage ones. At some point, the guitars really became unique unto themselves. When I say modern, I mean outside of the 'reissue' or 'historic' models, which try to be what the originals were.
thoughts?
Recently, I bought a '60 tele. I find the telecaster to be a beautiful instrument and have continued to try and find the right one. I found the right one in this guitar.
So why am I posting this here, instead of the fender area? Well, because the more I play the tele, the more I am hearing similar characteristics to my Les Paul. Notice I said 'characteristics' and not anything that says they equate. The tonal characteristic's seem very similar, while holding and playing the instrument is very different.
So I am wondering, was the original intent of the original Les Paul Gibson's way of doing Leo's tele, much like early Marshall's were similar to Leo's amps?
I just can't help but think that the two instruments are more alike than different. It has really changed the way I play the tele.
Mind you, I don't find the modern tele's vs. modern Les Paul's to be as similar as the vintage ones. At some point, the guitars really became unique unto themselves. When I say modern, I mean outside of the 'reissue' or 'historic' models, which try to be what the originals were.
thoughts?
Last edited: