Author Topic: Gibson Les Paul Axcess. GAS alert !! (Read 19123 times)

Philly Q · « **Reply #60 on:** February 04, 2008, 08:46:23 PM »

Quote from: Jonny

Not a fan of WT necks? What are you hoping for?

No, can't stand thin necks at all, which is one reason why I have no Ibanez guitars (for example).

The Mira also comes with a Regular neck (which is a slightly narrower version of the Wide Fat, as I understand it). Shops seem to generally stock PRS with WT necks more than the other shapes - which puts my wallet at less risk, I suppose. :?

ilÿti · « **Reply #61 on:** February 04, 2008, 08:59:06 PM »

There are so many new Gibsons that look so robot-like in my opinion. It's quite sad. I guess it's their new image.

Anway, I'd say go for the Carvin California Single. It will be made available with a plain top soon.
https://www.carvinguitars.com/catalog/guitars/index.php?model=cs6
Thinner, contoured body with nocheese holes. Long tenon neck, and carvin usual many ridiculous options. Yes, you can have a floyd rose if you want.

Jonny · « **Reply #62 on:** February 04, 2008, 09:01:48 PM »

Quote from: Philly Q

Quote from: Jonny
Not a fan of WT necks? What are you hoping for?

No, can't stand thin necks at all, which is one reason why I have no Ibanez guitars (for example).

The Mira also comes with a Regular neck (which is a slightly narrower version of the Wide Fat, as I understand it). Shops seem to generally stock PRS with WT necks more than the other shapes - which puts my wallet at less risk, I suppose. :?

You can always go to a shop dealer and ask for them to contact PRS to have a regular neck Mira, I'm sure it won't cost anymore but it'll take longer. That's what I'm going to try and do for a Custom 24, only that I want a certain color, lol..

Philly Q · « **Reply #63 on:** February 04, 2008, 10:26:11 PM »

Quote from: Jonny

You can always go to a shop dealer and ask for them to contact PRS to have a regular neck Mira, I'm sure it won't cost anymore but it'll take longer. That's what I'm going to try and do for a Custom 24, only that I want a certain color, lol..

I wouldn't want to do a special order on something as expensive as a PRS. If it happens to be a dud (and even PRS must make the odd dud) you're stuck with it, or at the very least lose your deposit.

No, I'll wait until I find one I like. Guitar Village have one with a regular neck in stock now, but it's black and I'd prefer a different colour. :)

Ted · « **Reply #64 on:** February 05, 2008, 08:58:34 AM »

I desperately want to play a Mira.

I want one too. But I'd have to be happy with the neck too.

Prawnik · « **Reply #65 on:** February 05, 2008, 09:49:47 AM »

Quote from: Ted

Quote
Instead of messing with perfection, I wish Gibson would focus its energies on making Les Pauls like in the old days, before everything started to suck. Maybe if Gibson could get that right I would consider allowing Henry J to foist his cr@ptastic ideas on the world.

+1

My advice to Gibson would be

1. Dump the R&D team, they are a waste of space...
2. Employ better QC and pay them more!
3. Copy PRS' success in making the best production instruments atm (IMO).
4. Try and go back to the golden years of Gibson instruments.

This is probably a huge oversimplification of issues though, but it would be nice if it could be done.

In the meantime I'll continue to save for my PRS.

No lie, Holmes, although I do not share your enthusiasm for PRS.

The problem is that I suspect that Gibson is making too much money on what it is doing now. The Gibson target demographic (middle-aged white men with cash to spend and a desire to re-live their youth) does not appear to be sated, even though Gibson keeps coming out with increasingly dubious concepts.

Here's a question: what was the last original good guitar Gibson has made? I am thinking the Firebird in the early 1960's. After that, Gibson has either tried (with varying degrees of success) to replicate old favorites (numerous LP reissues); followed trends (the Gibson M series shredder guitars of the mid-1980's); or produced utter cr@p (that "robot guitar," anyone?).

Actually, the more I think about it, even if the elves could be sweet-talked back to work at the Gibson plant, Henry J's ideas should still never see the light of day.

Philly Q · « **Reply #66 on:** February 05, 2008, 10:40:31 AM »

Quote from: Prawnik

The Gibson target demographic (middle-aged white men with cash to spend and a desire to re-live their youth)

Careful! That sounds uncomfortably like me.

Although to be honest, my youth was just as dull as my life now, so I'm not sure I'd want to re-live it. I was a bit slimmer and healthier, I suppose. :?

Quote

Here's a question: what was the last original good guitar Gibson has made?

The Nighthawk series had potential, if they hadn't used such idiosyncratic pickups. And to be fair to the M series, it was actually a bit different from everybody else's shred guitars - but they messed up the aesthetics.

But then most companies stick to a limited number of tried and tested basic shapes (Fender, PRS) - it's only the details that differ. In that sense, I don't think Gibson are much more guilty than anyone else - unfortunately they seem to concentrate on short-lived gimmicks and silly cosmetics (SG GT anyone?) rather than fine-tuning the basic designs and standards of production.

Afghan Dave · « **Reply #67 on:** February 05, 2008, 12:07:20 PM »

Quote from: Philly Q

Although to be honest, my youth was just as dull as my life now, so I'm not sure I'd want to re-live it. I was a bit slimmer and healthier, I suppose. :?

Great let's FINALLY get back on Topic...

Phily, old chap... do you fancy a trip to Bangkok? Hmm we can go wild in our middle age and meet some "ladies"...

Philly Q · « **Reply #68 on:** February 05, 2008, 01:00:54 PM »

Quote from: Afghan Dave

Phily, old chap... do you fancy a trip to Bangkok? Hmm we can go wild in our middle age and meet some "ladies"...

You could be right Dave m'boy, better late than never...

....but it does conjure up unfortunate images of those ITV2 documentaries about sex tourists. They all seem to look like Arthur C Clarke.

gwEm · « **Reply #69 on:** February 05, 2008, 01:02:21 PM »

i sometimes wonder about this forum...

Afghan Dave · « **Reply #70 on:** February 05, 2008, 01:08:40 PM »

Good lord...

I remember growing up watching Arthur C Clarke's "Mysterious World" on ITV?

That show used to freak the hell outta me...

Thank God I still turned out to be a well adjusted individual....:roll:

Jonny · « **Reply #71 on:** February 05, 2008, 04:15:47 PM »

Quote from: gwEm

i sometimes wonder about this forum...

Wonder or worry?

Prawnik · « **Reply #72 on:** February 06, 2008, 10:05:41 AM »

Quote from: Philly Q

Quote from: Prawnik

Here's a question: what was the last original good guitar Gibson has made?

The Nighthawk series had potential, if they hadn't used such idiosyncratic pickups. And to be fair to the M series, it was actually a bit different from everybody else's shred guitars - but they messed up the aesthetics.

But then most companies stick to a limited number of tried and tested basic shapes (Fender, PRS) - it's only the details that differ. In that sense, I don't think Gibson are much more guilty than anyone else - unfortunately they seem to concentrate on short-lived gimmicks and silly cosmetics (SG GT anyone?) rather than fine-tuning the basic designs and standards of production.

You're right - a lot of Gibson designs had potential, but the details were flaky (the Nighthawks) or others were already doing the same thing better (the M series).

I am not so much interested in shapes, though, so much as concepts. A Jackson Soloist has a shape based on the Stratocaster, but it is a very different guitar.

The Les Paul Studio isn't a bad guitar, and it fits a certain market segment better than its predecessors (the L-6S, "The Paul", etc.) did but I am not sure how much any of these guitars really represent new ideas.

Then again, the superstrats (to give one example) evolved gradually as well. It's not like Grover and Wayne got together one day in 1975 and decided to produce a totally new kind of Strat, just as soon as someone would invent a practical locking trem.

Scotty477 · « **Reply #73 on:** February 06, 2008, 10:41:31 AM »

Personally I don't have a problem with Gibson experimenting with things like Floyd Rose trems and contoured bodies etc.

As long as they continue to make the models that they do, then there is no issue.

It was mentioned in this thread that Gibson should give up development and concentrate on quality control.

I'm pretty certain that the Research and Development and Quality Control departments at Gibson will have no crossover budget and will have very little to do with one another. Whilst QC should be tweaked it's vitally important to continue to develop as a company - no matter what that company is.

I'm all for Gibson continuing to go for new ideas. What I would like to see is an entirely new model aimed at the single coil Strat market. I know Gibson do a single coil SG but it would be interesting to see Gibson's take on a Strat based shape.

Tellboy · « **Reply #74 on:** February 06, 2008, 10:41:51 AM »

Quote from: Prawnik

The Gibson target demographic (middle-aged white men with cash to spend and a desire to re-live their youth) does not appear to be sated, even though Gibson keeps coming out with increasingly dubious concepts.

shite! I thought I bought mine because I've always loved music and playing guitars

Les Paul and two SGs for sale - anyone? Can I keep my Fenders and Ibanez :lol: