# The "Less" Paul Prototype



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Gibson working on a prototype of the "Less" Paul. Your vote above

View attachment 1228


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

I've never been a fan of the heel on an LP. I also like contours and belly cuts. So this is more to my liking. I just hope it maintains the sound, cause,... there is nothing like the sound of an old Les Paul through a cranked vintage marshall.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Interesting. The heel-less neck is dead sexy, but it is hard to tell from the photos if the balance will be preserved, and if the resonance of the lower strings will also be preserved.

Granted, part of the essence of an LP comes from the maple+mahogany formula, and chambering doesn't seem to have negatively impacted on that formula, but this just seems different.

Still anything that delivers 85% of a LP with only 60% of the shoulder burden has got to be a good thing, right?


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

I'm guessing the "Less" look will result in "More" when it comes to MSRP, especially given how much more work all that shaping will take. Looks pretty cool though, I'd love to give one a go!


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

From Gibson



> More of the prototype based on the “Less” Paul developed by Bruce Kunkel in 2001, offering a new profile for the Les Paul body with a half cutaway on the base side and a shortened horn on the treble cutaway. The neck is blended into the body, eliminating the heel. No heel, less weight.​


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> From Gibson


..._cutaway on the *base *side
_
A bit embarrassing for a guitar manufacturer !!

Cheers

Dave


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

greco said:


> ..._cutaway on the *base *side
> _​A bit embarrassing for a guitar manufacturer !!
> 
> Cheers
> ...


Yes, I noticed that. Prolly some 16 year old kid they are paying to put stuff up on FB.


----------



## starjag (Jan 30, 2008)

Seems to have a massive belly cut! Better start drinking more beer and eating more bacon to fit properly.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Is the purpose of the massive belly cut due to the ever expanding waistline of todays society?

Both upper and lower bouts seem a bit strange. I'll pass.


----------



## Maxer (Apr 20, 2007)

I like it. Sort of pushes it more into Godin LG territory - the neck's very different, though. Bet it's real comfy.

But I'm guessing it will probably be too radical departure for old school LP fanatics.


----------



## georgemg (Jul 17, 2011)

Belly cut on a Les paul? What's the point? Aren't you supposed to play them below the belt?


----------



## Jimi D (Oct 27, 2008)

Considering some of the wanky brain-farts Gibson's been putting into production of late (Firebird X anyone? How about a Dusk Tiger?), this is definitely a step up - presuming it ever sees the light of day as a production model...


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

When I saw my first Les Paul, I though it was a French name (Lay Paul).

I think they're developing this just to eliminate or reduce mispronunciation.


----------



## blam (Feb 18, 2011)

I think it will appeal to many users.

nice to see them stepping out and trying new things.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

sulphur said:


> Is the purpose of the massive belly cut due to the ever expanding waistline of todays society?
> 
> Both upper and lower bouts seem a bit strange. I'll pass.


+1

Bad idea.


----------



## TWRC (Apr 22, 2011)

I voted against. Call me a purist but that look just doesn't do anything for me. If I wanted a guitar like that, I'd buy a Parker Fly or something.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

I like it. Anything to make an LP playable...

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Guest (Jul 9, 2012)

Hate it. It's not a les paul. Leave the contouring to PRS and the like.


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

Not a Fan...it's like buying a Roll Royce and adding spoolers and blinking lights under the car


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

It will be a lot harder to copy. That's for sure.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Les Paul TNG.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I don't mind the look. The heel looks like an improvement, but then again, the heel on a conventional Les Paul never bothered me.

I would have to try one. I kind of like the weight of a normal LP. I think that's a key characteristic in their balance.

If weight is really a concern I can see it appealing to some players.


----------



## bluezombie (May 7, 2007)

It kinda bugs me. Looks more like a PRS than a Gibson


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

Robert1950 said:


>


Cool...we go to the same hairstylist.

Cheers

Dave


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Mooh said:


> I like it. Anything to make an LP playable...


Yeah...NOBODY plays a Les Paul.

COME ON, Mooh!!


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

I'd have to try it out first, but I'm not sure about all those curves...

I find my Les Paul very playable.

But that's going to depend on what you're used to as well as the size & shape of you body.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

So they took the axxess another notch?

Really, it just seems like a version of the guitar AJC made for me. A better heel and tummy cut appeals to me for how the carved top sits.

I'd hit it.


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

it's gonna be a VERY limited Run...AND the price should be....well, insane..LOL


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

I would have to play it before I gave it a yay or nay but I'm betting that there will be no choice on neck width and it will be too narrow as is the case with almost all Gibsons (and Fender and many others).

I do like the contoured back and neck, though.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

smorgdonkey said:


> Yeah...NOBODY plays a Les Paul.
> 
> COME ON, Mooh!!


Playable...for me! Always found them weirdly balanced. Ymmv, obviously.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

al3d said:


> it's gonna be a VERY limited Run...AND the price should be....well, insane..LOL


I really hope not. There are some people, like me, who don't have the hands to deal with the traditional heel on the Les Paul. I like the heel on the Les Paul Axcess and I like the look of the heel the this LP:TNG. I also like contours and belly cuts. My fantasy guitar would be a set neck strat that sounds like a vintage Les Paul, but hey, if this brings it a little closer, why not. I believe there are a lot guitar players out who find this design more playable. The current LP is not for everyone. It would be dumb if Gibson makes this a limited run and insanely priced - really stoopid production and marketing. But with Henry J (aka Mr. Firebird X) anything could go down the tubes.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

I also don't think they needed to change the bottom horn - the tip of the guitar doesn't affect the fret access *L*


----------



## marcos (Jan 13, 2009)

It looks pretty sexy to me or, is it the wine talking. Looks great but it will never, I repeat, never replace the real thing. Its marketing and they are looking for other markets.


----------



## Woof (Jan 13, 2010)

Certainly a curiosity factor for me, I wanna see one... and play one...


----------



## studio66 (Oct 16, 2009)

I only have 1 question...Why?
What's the point? (outside of trying to boost sales on the back of a thoroughbred) 
Make a new model and make it whatever you want but a Les Paul is iconic...If it ain't broke.....
To suddenly say "Hey...we have a new Mona Lisa and she has blond hair and a tattoo" I'd rather they say "Hey we have a new model and its called the Glass Tiger or Backwater" blah blah blah...  Just not a LP.
YMMV


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Because they addressed the issues that a lot of people have with les pauls, who can now get a Gibson they actually like? *shrugs*

At the end of the day, I don't care - I already own something very close to what they're trying to make.


----------



## studio66 (Oct 16, 2009)

Budda said:


> Because they addressed the issues that a lot of people have with les pauls, who can now get a Gibson they actually like? *shrugs*
> 
> At the end of the day, I don't care - I already own something very close to what they're trying to make.


I dont disagree with your point at all but regardless it wont be a Les Paul...it will be something else.
A Les Paul is the the sum of its parts (warts and all) and patents it also has a legacy that this prototype adds nothing too other than riding its coattails....
I'm a Les Paul nut for sure and find it a tiny bit offensive that Gibson would refer to this as a LP....I've had up to 4 Custom Shop LPs here and currently have an R9 that I cant imagine not having...it has all the tone,majesty and quirks that a proper LP has...thats what makes it a LP 
If this new guitar improves on the formula...awesome...it just wont be what we romantically lust after as a LP.
New Coke anyone?


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

These are hand built by ONE luthier, not made but commissioned by Gibson. so if they make more then 20 or 30..i'de be suprised. OR...scan it and get it produced via CNC.



Robert1950 said:


> I really hope not. There are some people, like me, who don't have the hands to deal with the traditional heel on the Les Paul. I like the heel on the Les Paul Axcess and I like the look of the heel the this LP:TNG. I also like contours and belly cuts. My fantasy guitar would be a set neck strat that sounds like a vintage Les Paul, but hey, if this brings it a little closer, why not. I believe there are a lot guitar players out who find this design more playable. The current LP is not for everyone. It would be dumb if Gibson makes this a limited run and insanely priced - really stoopid production and marketing. But with Henry J (aka Mr. Firebird X) anything could go down the tubes.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

marcos said:


> It looks pretty sexy to me or, is it the wine talking. Looks great* but it will never*, I repeat, never replace the real thing. *Its marketing and they are looking for other markets*.


It is not meant to replace the real thing. I thought that was obvious. As you said, it is marketing and they are looking for other markets - like me, who have a bit of an awkward time with the heel and the single cut design of traditional Les Paul. And want a Gibson, not a PRS.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

al3d said:


> These are hand built by ONE luthier, not made but commissioned by Gibson. so if they make more then 20 or 30..i'de be suprised. OR...scan it and get it produced via CNC.


This a prototype. Of course it was built by a luthier, back in 2001. As the OP says, it is now being worked on by Gibson. Prototypes are built by luthiers. For inferior players like me this holds the possibility a more playable take on the Le Paul. I'd like to see it go to production.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

studio66 said:


> I only have 1 question...Why?
> What's the point? (outside of trying to boost sales on the back of a thoroughbred)
> Make a new model and make it whatever you want but a Les Paul is iconic...If it ain't broke.....
> To suddenly say "Hey...we have a new Mona Lisa and she has blond hair and a tattoo" I'd rather they say "Hey we have a new model and its called the Glass Tiger or Backwater" blah blah blah...  Just not a LP.
> YMMV


In my opinion the Godin LG is a better LP. Better balance, better weight, better switching, better geometry, just as good pickups, just as good tones...Yeah, yeah, yeah...your mileage and all that.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

I agree 100% man. it's not a LP..but rather a modern take on a Les Paul..but tone wise, it will totally be different. a LP sounds like it does because of it's shape, wood, density and amount of wood. 



studio66 said:


> I dont disagree with your point at all but regardless it wont be a Les Paul...it will be something else.
> A Les Paul is the the sum of its parts (warts and all) and patents it also has a legacy that this prototype adds nothing too other than riding its coattails....
> I'm a Les Paul nut for sure and find it a tiny bit offensive that Gibson would refer to this as a LP....I've had up to 4 Custom Shop LPs here and currently have an R9 that I cant imagine not having...it has all the tone,majesty and quirks that a proper LP has...thats what makes it a LP
> If this new guitar improves on the formula...awesome...it just wont be what we romantically lust after as a LP.
> New Coke anyone?


----------



## studio66 (Oct 16, 2009)

Mooh said:


> In my opinion the Godin LG is a better LP. Better balance, better weight, better switching, better geometry, just as good pickups, just as good tones...Yeah, yeah, yeah...your mileage and all that.
> 
> Peace, Mooh.


And thats cool...I'm even curious to try one out now....but it will always be a Godin...not a Les Paul let alone a better one...respectfully


----------



## studio66 (Oct 16, 2009)

al3d said:


> I agree 100% man. it's not a LP..but rather a modern take on a Les Paul..but tone wise, it will totally be different. a LP sounds like it does because of it's shape, wood, density and amount of wood.


I would agree with you there....get in with the real fanatics and you'll be discussing sheathed vs non sheathed truss rods...haha...


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

Call me a purist or a cork-sniffer or whatever you want, but I don't like it. No, I'm not a Les Paul fanatic (currently have 5 functioning Strats + 1.5 to be assembled later to 1 Lester) and probably could benefit from some rear contouring, but that's too much, Gibson has just de"base"d a classic design. And the horns? Seriously? If I wanted a Godin, I'd buy a Godin. The contoured neck heel is a nice idea, but if you want a Gibson and high fret access is a deal breaker than just grab an SG or a Vee. 

I don't mind the design per se (it's better than the GothicRobotDinkTiger) I think what's pissing me off is the way they're marketing it on the coattails of an all-time classic guitar. Why does Gibson lack a coherent vision these days? The Custom Shop is producing incredible guitars and the rest of the company seems to be an utter clusterf*ck.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

They need to stay away from the Les Paul name on this one. Call it something unique


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

I really like the curvy smooth concept but as others have pointed out, it's NOT a Les Paul. Why can't Gibson just call it a modern progression in their offerings. They blew it with the RDs and such when they couldn't market them even though most musicians I knew at the time seemed to like them at least to some degree. Gibson has always had a problem marketing their innovations. I wonder if this will be another failed departure in their line due to marketing folly. I hope not. I kinda like the design.


----------



## studio66 (Oct 16, 2009)

GuitarsCanada said:


> They need to stay away from the Les Paul name on this one. Call it something unique


+1 Exactly


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

The Les Paul Morph or something.

Dali Paul.

Les Melt.

Gibson Quadruple Cut.

Carved Paul.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

As long as they don't call it the Henry J..


----------



## Tarbender (Apr 7, 2006)

I'm wondering what Les Paul would say if he were still alive and _IF_ Gibson would try this ...?


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

I agree that calling it a Les Paul isn't really appropriate. If it's an LP then half the guitars made are LPs. Find a new name for something that far from the original. 

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## studio66 (Oct 16, 2009)

Tarbender said:


> I'm wondering what Les Paul would say if he were still alive and _IF_ Gibson would try this ...?


Most likely the same thing he said when he saw what we now call the SG...."Take my name off of it!"
Which is what he did when they messed with the design again in the face of slumping sales...1961...it was no longer a les Paul so it was creatively named the SG for solid guitar


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

Robert1950 said:


> My fantasy guitar would be a set neck strat that sounds like a vintage Les Paul


No love for an SG?


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Tarbender said:


> I'm wondering what Les Paul would say if he were still alive and _IF_ Gibson would try this ...?


My guess is that he'd say :

"Less Paul is right - WAY Less!"


----------



## studio66 (Oct 16, 2009)

Roryfan said:


> No love for an SG?


I think SGs are great personally  They are their own thing...and what a cool thing it is!!
Its beyond me why they would try and fly it under the banner of the LP when it was such great yet very different guitar to start with.
Like the guitar that started this discussion that would probably be cool as well...just not a...bah....I'm even getting tired of hearing me say it....lol!


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

_No love for an SG?

_Oops, I was referring to Robert's request _*("My fantasy guitar would be a set neck strat that sounds like a vintage Les Paul") *_but I seem to be all thumbs today and accidentally deleted his quote in my post.


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

studio66 said:


> Tarbender said:
> 
> 
> > I'm wondering what Les Paul would say if he were still alive and _IF_ Gibson would try this ...?
> ...


Les & Mary Ford went through a rather nasty divorce in 1963, I always understood that part of his rationale was not wanting her to get a portion of his royalties.


----------



## studio66 (Oct 16, 2009)

Roryfan said:


> Les & Mary Ford went through a rather nasty divorce in 1963, I always understood that part of his rationale was not wanting her to get a portion of his royalties.


I didn't know that...I have the biographies but as a standard gear nut I skipped over everything that wasn't about the guitar itself...
It would seem a shame as she was a _pretty_ good ambassador for the the "log" if you can pardon the pun


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Food for thought:

I had an AL-3100, sounded great next to my friend's Gibson LPC. I bought the same pickups in that agile, and put them in my PRS SE Singlecut.

Guess what!

That's right; there was barely any tonal difference after the pickup swap. My more-easy-to-play, less-weight-on-shoulder guitar now sounded like the gorgeous silverburst it sat next to.

I love les pauls, I want another one (regardless of what the headstock says), but for me a PRS Singlecut would be the gigging guitar.


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

studio66 said:


> Roryfan said:
> 
> 
> > Les & Mary Ford went through a rather nasty divorce in 1963, I always understood that part of his rationale was not wanting her to get a portion of his royalties.
> ...


Word on the street is that she may have enjoyed a few lumberjacks that weren't named Les, if you catch my drift.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56FTxA4FNTI&feature=youtube_gdata_player


----------



## studio66 (Oct 16, 2009)

Roryfan said:


> Word on the street is that she may have enjoyed a few lumberjacks that weren't named Les, if you catch my drift.
> 
> Otis Rush - Crosscut Saw 1981.avi - YouTube


Uh oh...


----------



## studio66 (Oct 16, 2009)

Budda said:


> Food for thought:
> 
> I had an AL-3100, sounded great next to my friend's Gibson LPC. I bought the same pickups in that agile, and put them in my PRS SE Singlecut.
> 
> ...


Glad the SE is working for you but the "regardless of what it says on the headstock" puzzles me....
If you want another Les Paul then will have to say Gibson Les Paul on the headstock.The LP is a signature model and any company copying the body style and basic wood combinations are not making Les Pauls 
You mention PRS....I love PRS but have sold everyone that I've had...Modern Eagle Quatro,3 DGTs,Custom 22 and a Standard...I went to the PRS Experience last year and spent 3 days wandering the factory floor....none of my PRS ever came close to replicating the thump and raw/open tone of my Les Pauls....they were very cool guitars in their own right but....
You also bring up an interesting point that has always bothered me....why do all these companies make copies of somebody else's design...LP...Strat...Tele...
No creative juices of their own?
Going to improve on something _they_ decided needing improving on?
Do your own thing in my book...rant off...sorry


----------



## The Kicker Of Elves (Jul 20, 2006)

In regards to the OP:

View attachment 1235


----------



## pattste (Dec 30, 2007)

I think it looks great. I'd certainly try playing one if it were made available. It's obviously not intended to replace the LP as we know it.

I'm all for Gibson trying new designs, yes, even the Firebird X, the Robot, the Darkfire etc. Many of the most iconic guitar designs of all times came from Gibson and many of them were poorly received at the time.


----------



## Dan578867 (Jun 7, 2012)

It seems like gibson is trying to break new ground. We all don't like the unknown/change but if someone dosent push the unknown things will never change that's why we have copies and funky styles.
The guitar itself looks nice it will need a new name but as others have said I would have to sit with it aswell to know if.
Dan


----------



## hummingway (Aug 4, 2011)

I think it's gorgeous, sexy was the first thought I had, and I hit love it but without playing a guitar it's pretty hard to judge. All those curves might just mean it looks good on the wall. 

I get all the "it's not an LP" comments but then is it different the all the <pick a big number> of strat variations? Maybe Fender keeps to the basic slab of wood approach but they do manage to call a lot of things strats that only share the slab with the original; it's marketing the brand of course, but then you all knew that.


----------



## Inepsy (Aug 15, 2011)

Tough to say until its all finished for me, buuut I'd play it


----------



## The Lullaby (Dec 8, 2010)

nice looking guitar but it's already called Godin's ICON


----------



## Petey D (Sep 8, 2011)

Don't like it. It looks like a Godin not a Gibson, and at the risk of angering all the Godin fans here, I'm pretty much the "anti-godin." To Gibson I say, "Make it if you want, but call it something other than Les(s) Paul."


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

No matter Gibson's possible ownership of the name, I don't get why they would want to name something Les Paul when it doesn't resemble a Les Paul in shape. I also don't get using a deceased person's name on a new design. Seems like cashing in to me, and Gibson hardly needs to cash in. In the industry it seems to me that the name follows the shape more often than not. There are many models/configurations of Telecasters, Stratocasters, Flying Vs, SGs, etc and the shape is the common characteristic. In any event, with Gibson's recent history of weird models, almost anything they do is suspect. 

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## loudtubeamps (Feb 2, 2012)

OK, So to stir the pot ,to all of the Les Paul purists who comment that this new version should not be called a Les Paul, I ask you 
which *models* of these should not be called Les Pauls and which one(s) should?
GUITAR HEAVEN: All Time Legend *Gibson Les Paul Personal 1970*

http://www.soundofthetheatre.com/eBay/9UL7-24-07/GibsonLPcollectionx11/GibsonLPcollectionx11.htm


Gibson Les Paul Junior guitar TV Model LP info electric vintage 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Very good point, though I would expect the vast majority of LPs are of the singlecut carved top variety. 
I suppose the other characteristics of an LP, the 2 'buckers (usually now), 2 volumes and tones, 3 position switch location, might also be defining...the other LP models notwithstanding.

Thanks for the interesting links.

Peace, Mooh.



loudtubeamps said:


> OK, So to stir the pot ,to all of the Les Paul purists who comment that this new version should not be called a Les Paul, I ask you
> which *models* of these should not be called Les Pauls and which one(s) should?
> GUITAR HEAVEN: All Time Legend *Gibson Les Paul Personal 1970*
> 
> ...


----------



## loudtubeamps (Feb 2, 2012)

I've played these, quite nice but it's all full of holes. Another model gone wrong?
Alteration of the traditional Les Paul guitar design through chambering

__
Sensitive content, not recommended for those under 18
Show Content


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

I agree with the author of the article - if you are going to change the specs of the instrument, it should be made clear in the model name that it is a different animal. I have no problem with changing designs but I don't like to find that I did not get what I expected after spending premium bucks. Why not be up front and market the "new improved light weight Les Paul for the modern player - The Les Paul Sport". Hell, big corps successfully flog that kind of marketing crap all the time. But keep the original models and offer them as "Les Paul Classic". And keep Les Paul's name off designs he never laid an eye on.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

The weight and balance of non-chambered Les Paul's has always really great to me. I wouldn't want a chambered one.

PRS guitars, while pretty, have always felt too light for my tastes.


----------



## Hamstrung (Sep 21, 2007)

I'd reserve final judgement until it's in my hands (or at least some really good final pics). Nothing too offensive looking so far. I agree about calling it something else though. 
As for having no heel it still looks pretty damn thick where the neck joins the body so I'm curious if it ends up being more of an aesthetic difference.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

I really don't give a rat's ass what they call it, but maybe calling Son of Henry would be too much. Something that would be a stylized hybrid of an SG and Les Paul would be interesting. Maple cap, mahogany body and neck. Rosewood board. 24.6 scale, couple of buckers, 3 way, ,...and DOUBLE CUT. With a heel that is a wee bit smaller than the rock of Gibraltar.


----------



## mechanic (Apr 1, 2010)

I assume with Gibson's history about such things that this new model will prove that old adage right.
"Les is (now) more?


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

mechanic said:


> I assume with Gibson's history about such things that this new model will prove that old adage right.
> "Les is (now) more?


 Or perhaps "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread"?


----------

