Design Flaws, and why guitarists generally fear change

We can go back to cars. If one car was built without crumple zones and most people dropped dead in accidents in that car, the answer isn’t stop having accidents. Gibsons are known for the delicate headstock for a reason.
That analogy is terrible. Nobody gets hurt if a headstock breaks. While 99.9% of people buying a new car drive that car on public roads where an accident endangers other vehicles/people in addition to the vehicle/body of the negligent driver, probably fewer than 1% of guitars sold are used in a touring scenario, and likely way under 10% are used in a gigging scenario.

And I thought the big complaint here was tuning, not headstock breakage?
 
That analogy is terrible. Nobody gets hurt if a headstock breaks. While 99.9% of people buying a new car drive that car on public roads where an accident endangers other vehicles/people in addition to the vehicle/body of the negligent driver, probably fewer than 1% of guitars sold are used in a touring scenario, and likely way under 10% are used in a gigging scenario.

And I thought the big complaint here was tuning, not headstock breakage?
You sure as hell dont need to be on tour for a headstock to break. You dont even need to leave the house. The design flaw is not imagined. They simply break more often than not. Guitars being what they are will get bumped around and may take an occasional spill, even at home. It’s not unreasonable to expect it should have average structural integrity.

Truth be told, the couple tuning issues I had with Gibsons were back when Stevie Wonder was cutting nuts over there. I’m not sure that situation has been rectified. My Knaggs never pinged in the nut slot. Fenders, either. Only gibsons. Once they were addressed, pinging and tuning problems went away. Truth be told many people dont know how to string a Gibson type guitar which causes a lot of their grief.
 
I’ve told you more than once, you shouldn’t. If you like the sound and feel of your Gibson, keep playing it. I hope you circle the world 10 times on the biggest stages with it. It still doesn’t negate the inherent problems with Gibsons. That’s what we are talking about. If those shortcomings suit you and are worth it you you for feel and tone supposed gains, then keep playing a Les Paul.

You're trying to objectify things that are subjective. Perceived "shortcomings" and "inherent problems" are completely subjective things in this context.

If I'm playing Eruption an Ormsby Goliath is going to have shortcomings and inherent problems.
If I'm playing Awaken The Master a PRS SIlver Sky is going to have shortcomings and inherent problems.
If I'm playing Le Freak an Ibanez RG8 is going to have shortcomings and inherent problems.
If I'm playing a chord/melody arrangement of Autumn Leaves an Abasi Larada is going to have shortcomings and inherent problems.


You keep implying the only reason I would be playing a Gibson is because I'm either a traditionalist who just puts up with problems/flaws because I like traditional things, or because I don't have enough experience with modern designs that "fix" these problems/flaws to realize them. This whole thread has been about people who play Gibsons being traditionalists who fear change.

I'm saying I think that's all complete nonsense and there are many other valid reasons why someone might choose to use one.


Modern isn't better just because it's modern just like traditional isn't better just because it's traditional.
 
You're trying to objectify things that are subjective. Perceived "shortcomings" and "inherent problems" are completely subjective things in this context.

If I'm playing Eruption an Ormsby Goliath is going to have shortcomings and inherent problems.
If I'm playing Awaken The Master a PRS SIlver Sky is going to have shortcomings and inherent problems.
If I'm playing Le Freak an Ibanez RG8 is going to have shortcomings and inherent problems.
If I'm playing a chord/melody arrangement of Autumn Leaves an Abasi Larada is going to have shortcomings and inherent problems.


You keep implying the only reason I would be playing a Gibson is because I'm either a traditionalist who just puts up with problems/flaws because I like traditional things, or because I don't have enough experience with modern designs that "fix" these problems/flaws to realize them. This whole thread has been about people who play Gibsons being traditionalists who fear change.

I'm saying I think that's all complete nonsense and there are many other valid reasons why someone might choose to use one.


Modern isn't better just because it's modern just like traditional isn't better just because it's traditional.
If you want to argue standing up for 2 or 3 sets with an 11lb guitar is somehow better than doing it with a 7lb guitar or the fact the guitar is structurally more fragile than all of its counterparts, go ahead but I dont think you have a good argument there. If you choose to look past those things, great. That’s entirely up to you. You’re certainly entitled to. It’s your money and your back. You are the captain of your ship, no one else. Nothing is going to stop other ship to ship communication over the course heading here, though. Everyone gets one opinion based on relevant facts of the case.

Jesus Christ I feel like I’m in court and I’m not even at work today.
 
If you want to argue standing up for 2 or 3 sets with an 11lb guitar is somehow better than doing it with a 7lb guitar or the fact the guitar is structurally more fragile than all of its counterparts, go ahead but I dont think you have a good argument there. If you choose to look past those things, great. That’s entirely up to you. You’re certainly entitled to. It’s your money and your back. You are the captain of your ship, no one else. Nothing is going to stop other ship to ship communication over the course heading here, though. Everyone gets one opinion based on relevant facts of the case.

Jesus Christ I feel like I’m in court and I’m not even at work today.
I don't want to argue that a guitar that is ill suited for your needs is not I'll suited for your needs. Nor do I think metro does either. Instead, what's being argued is that just because a guitar isn't designed to suit your needs doesn't mean it's a flawed design. But whatever.
 
If you want to argue standing up for 2 or 3 sets with an 11lb guitar is somehow better than doing it with a 7lb guitar or the fact the guitar is structurally more fragile than all of its counterparts, go ahead but I dont think you have a good argument there. If you choose to look past those things, great. That’s entirely up to you.

You're still not seeing my point: I'm not "Choosing to look past those things". They simply aren't things to me. :idk

Weight doesn't matter to me. I never said heavier guitars are better, I just don't personally care. My Gibsons have survived all the same bumps, dings, drops, transport in a truck as all my other guitars and I've never noticed them to be any more fragile than any of my other guitars, so whatever structural fragility they may have is well within the bounds of acceptable for me.


If there were problems/shortcomings to me I would be using something different that fixed those problems. I don't typically look past problems in my gear. If there's a problem with something I'm using I find something else that works better for me. But I see no point in looking for solutions to problems I don't have...
 
I don't want to argue that a guitar that is ill suited for your needs is not I'll suited for your needs. Nor do I think metro does either. Instead, what's being argued is that just because a guitar isn't designed to suit your needs doesn't mean it's a flawed design. But whatever.

You're still not seeing my point: I'm not "Choosing to look past those things". They simply aren't things to me. :idk

Weight doesn't matter to me. I never said heavier guitars are better, I just don't personally care. My Gibsons have survived all the same bumps, dings, drops, transport in a truck as all my other guitars and I've never noticed them to be any more fragile than any of my other guitars, so whatever structural fragility they may have is well within the bounds of acceptable for me.


If there were problems/shortcomings to me I would be using something different that fixed those problems. I don't typically look past problems in my gear. If there's a problem with something I'm using I find something else that works better for me. But I see no point in looking for solutions to problems I don't have...
I’m all out of analogies. Y’all can win. Peace!
 
I’m all out of analogies. Y’all can win. Peace!

I get your analogies and your points, all I've been trying to say is that they don't fit here.

You keep trying to throw these blanket stereotypes on everyone who plays a Gibson, but that doesn't work.

Guitar choice is a totally subjective personal thing. One players "better" is another's "worse".
 
I get your analogies and your points, all I've been trying to say is that they don't fit here.

You keep trying to throw these blanket stereotypes on everyone who plays a Gibson, but that doesn't work.

Guitar choice is a totally subjective personal thing. One players "better" is another's "worse".
No doubt. I’m not stereotyping anyone. I’m pointing out relevant facts about the instrument, itself. The facts I’m pointing out in this thread happen to be negative. I have good things to say about Les Pauls, too. A LPC was my main guitar for years and is covered in more beer and bar Wh*re than can ever be polished off. Trust me, I get Les Pauls and why some players will die with one in their hands. Aside from the fact the man himself played until he was 93 and I had the extreme honor of meeting him and having him sign all my shit. He was easily the nicest and most humble HUMAN I’ve ever met, much less musician.

How people will respond to those facts will run the spectrum. They dont bother you. Others wont purchase one because of them. Takes all types to make the world go around.

To Bruce
Keep Rockin
Les Paul

CD87667F-570C-42A2-9FF9-4447F924DA7F.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Wait a minute, I cant say Wh*re? Wh*re? God damnit! Wh*re!!!!!! It’s not even a cuss. It’s in the dictionary for god sake.
 
Last edited:
an angled headstock and a poorly cut nut also contribute to tuning issues.

the biggest problem, however, is the lack of adequately stretching your strings and the bad habit of tuning DOWN to pitch when you overshoot too sharp. never do that. always overshoot flat and tune UP to pitch.
 
The other trick particularly for Gibson but it works on most tilt back heads. When you string up wind the strings up the post to lessen the pressure on the nut. This has made some of the most stubborn vintage Gibsons stay in perfect tune.
 
^^^ Same, my EC-1000T doesn't have tuning issues, any more than any of my other guitars.

Having said that, and as hideous as I think this thing is, I have thought about getting one of these, to see if there is any real improvement:

String Butler

I just ordered one. Praying it will help. I got the "V1" version, which is counter-intuitively newer than the V2-V5 versions (???) and basically looks like an oversized truss rod cover:

81nMP3yeeyL._AC_SY679_.jpg
 
Tuning Issues are mostly always due to the Nut have you tried lubing the nut, i do this to all my guitars after every string change,
1000%. You should do this at every string change. I also hit the saddles and I can even do deep dives on my floating trem, and it comes back in tune.
 
I just ordered one. Praying it will help. I got the "V1" version, which is counter-intuitively newer than the V2-V5 versions (???) and basically looks like an oversized truss rod cover:

81nMP3yeeyL._AC_SY679_.jpg
Just moving the angle by adding another friction point is poor solution . Lessen the string angle by winding the strings up and cut the nut to accommodate the angle and instead of adding friction you reduce it . The "Real" solution would be straight pull and a shallow angle but Les Paul players aren't going to allow that.
 
Lessen the string angle by winding the strings up and cut the nut to accommodate the angle and instead of adding friction you reduce it .
Agree this is the most likely issue and probably the best solution. I just don't have much faith in some random tech getting it right - and I'd rather not part with the guitar. Maybe it's time to order some tools and learn some new skills.

Just moving the angle by adding another friction point is poor solution .
I get your point, but I think this oversimplifies things a bit. The friction point isn't just moved to a different place; the break angle on the headstock side of the nut is (in some measure) replaced by a wider radius part. (Some reviews imply that part rotates? Not sure.) I'm not advocating or defending this accessory; just making some observations. I'll know in a few days whether it's actually helpful.
 
Never ever had tuning issues or headstock breaks on any of my Les Pauls , love them to death and wouldn't trade for anything else . They are magical .

With all this talk of Les Pauls being so crappy for tuning and easily prone to breakage you have to wonder why so many players have toured with them year after year after year (decade after decade?) all over the world.

Keep a close eye on your LP and you'll never have to worry about breaking a headstock. Tons of options for easily improving tuning.
Amazing how so many LP threads end up focusing on broken headstocks when it's such a rare occurrence - unless you're a dumbass and don't know how to take care of your stuff.

Got my first black with gold hardware LP custom in 75-76. Probably owned a half dozen of them since - each for long stretches. Never broke a headstock and never suffered tuning issues for for any longer than it takes to add a little graphite to the nut slot.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
I love them both to death but both my s2 vela and my CE24 have worse tuning stability than any Gibson I've ever owned :p
 
With all this talk of Les Pauls being so crappy for tuning and easily prone to breakage you have to wonder why so many players have toured with them year after year after year (decade after decade?) all over the world.
Just because something is widely used doesn't mean it's perfect and can't be improved. Leaving emotions out of it, Gibson headstock is objectively bad design.

Amazing how so many LP threads end up focusing on broken headstocks when it's such a rare occurrence
I remember in one of Andertons videos, when I was still subed to them, saying that Gibson headstock breakage is by far the most common repair they do in their shop.
 
Back
Top