Talk:Gibson Les Paul/Archive 1

Need to add the neck scale to the table
I was trying to compare with the Byrdland, which has a short scale according to the Wikipedia article, or 23.X", so I came to see what the Les Paul has, but the table does not include it.  It would be great if someone who is a SME on this could update it.   Thanks!   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.76.12 (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

58 LP reissue image
IMAGE: I threw up an image of my buddies 58 LP Reissue. The LP Studio was a fine pic, but this is a more general article about the LP model, and the Studios are a 'submodel' if you will. The 57/58/59 are the most popular models...

Should we put les paul's real name on this page, or should we just call him Les Paul throughout. I thought maybe at the very end, when we're talking about his gig in NYC... or near the beginning where it's stated that he created one of the first early solid-body electric prototypes and approached Gibson without their interest.

AlSO, i hope i haven't offended anyone with my syntax corrections,etc. I tend to want to fix writing--i'm a college english teacher. But please know that i also write for myself--poetry, fiction, faction--and correct my own writing just as much as i have here. I'm new here and new on wikipeida...so maybe i'm doing things in a non-wiki way.... but i'm just trying be myself and to help. It wasn't intended to be overbearing or to infringe, in any way. :) I also just realized that this RATHER LENGTHY LES PAUL ARTICLE... was a STUB!!!  I'm really impressed by how everyone pitched in so much info. to turn it into such an informative article.

Kudos. Thanks,smd &quot;ms. fixit.&quot; 01:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC) SarahMdaughertysmd &quot;ms. fixit.&quot; 01:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed?
Economy priced guitars such as Melody Makers and Les Paul Jr. were intended to target younger guitar players - the novice market. We need a citation for that? Really? musant (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Musant. The first tag on #Junior (1954–1960) and TV (1955–1960) section was inserted by me,
 * because most books said that Gibson Melody Maker (1959-) was released after Gibson Les Paul Junior (1954-). If there is no reliable source on above quoted phrase, we should remove it.  The second tag is probably not mine, but detailed citation about Gibson's novice models may also clarify first tag. best regards, --Commons Guitarpop (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * because most books said that Gibson Melody Maker (1959-) was released after Gibson Les Paul Junior (1954-). If there is no reliable source on above quoted phrase, we should remove it.  The second tag is probably not mine, but detailed citation about Gibson's novice models may also clarify first tag. best regards, --Commons Guitarpop (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Tables
Would anyone object to a few tables describing the specifications (body, neck, bridge, pickups, finish, etc.) for the main variants in the 'Models and variations' section? I want to make sure people would not think it overkill. I of course would have to only concentrate on the "main" variants. I would be happy to take a serious first crack at it, but would want some others to review and edit. Thanks. Branny76 05:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

> and the pop star and electronics tinkerer Les Paul

Given that Les Paul invented the multitrack recorder, designed the Gibson LP and had an accomplished jazz carrier recording with the likes of Chet Atkins etc (as well as continuing performing with his trio every monday evening at the Iridium jazz venue in NY), I think "tinkerer" is somewhat insulting and does not due justice. So I've just upgraded him a bit. Nice page! 3-27-05 Modi

...also added a bit on Seth Lover and a couple of LP players at the bottom Modi

Norlin era
Could someone include the year that Gibson was taken over in respect to the section titled "Les Paul models in the Norlin era". The article isn't very clear as to when it happened. Gibsoninside

Notable players
Shouldn't we remove this and make a "list of notable Gibson Les Paul players"? --S-man


 * "Notable" lists are just POV lists. No matter what criteria is placed on the list, someone is just going to stick their favourite NN player in there anyways. And what is the criteria? What about guitarists like Eric Clapton or Keith Richards? Slowhand is a "notable" Strat player and Keef is a "notable" Tele player. But both brought the Les Paul into the forefront in the 60's when they were both using Black Beauty LP's. Everyone and his dog wanted one simply because they saw those two using them...I know I did. The grand task is simply to keep the existing list pared down to a bare minimum. Or...if a vote or some kind of talk page concensus were reached...do away with the "notable" lists on all guitar model pages completely. Again, even if that were to happen...sure as anything some anon would re-create a new list just to get their own POV fave in there. My thoughts anyways. Anger22 01:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the general list of gibson players does not help or add anything the pared down list argument doesn't work for me, sure the criteria to be a notable player varies from person to person, Clapton is associated with a number of guitar types as is Kieth Richards etc etc this is a subject close to my heart in the Byrdland entry on Wiki. Clapton is in my book a notable Byrdland player he has recorded with and performed on a Byrdland, keith Richards is a notable player but to my knowledge not a Byrdland Player although I would say he has been a notable Les Paul Player as has Clapton. I say go ahead put your list up, if people want to take exception to some of those listed have the discussion at the time, WIki is after all a living work in progress, isn't it? RogerGLewis (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ummm???? A) The post you just replied to is almost 3 years old and B) The person you are posting the belated comment to is Anger22 who was one of the administrators who formed the consensus to do away with all product player lists and only allow notable players to be added to the main Gibson player list... if the entry could pass the list criteria for inclusion. So saying "you agree" is quite wrong and totally out-of-date. Hope that helps. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, As you know I am new to this and getting used to the set up here. The list that you refer to is a consensus list of all notable Gibson Players, extracting the players within the list and mentioning them seperately as specific players of the instrument of each seperate entry would seem to make sense and wouldn't go against the consensus.If that list was done 3 years ago it is probably correct that the people that might be on it could have increased by now. AT the moment it is not very user friendly and isn't very clear this would seem to be at odds with the philosophy of deletionism. My other point was on the shipping figures of different instruments what was wrong with that as a link?RogerGLewis (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the consensus still applies because all brand player lists are an ongoing Guitarist Project effort to reach featured status. Currently List of Telecaster players is a Wikipedia Featured Article. List of Gibson players and List of Stratocaster players are both very close to attaining featured status.... because of their strict criteria and because they are designed as companion pieces to the main manufacturer articles. Because Gibson has so many different models it was decided that only a 'Gibson' list would exist and no list for each specific model would be allowed. When player lists are included within specific models they become magnets for fanboys spiking the lists with their favourite players... even if they only touched the model once in their career. The lists then begin to push WP:LC. The player lists are intended to be 'strict', 'short' and 'sourced'. Any notable player is allowed to be added to the list if they meet the list lead-in criteria and have proper references from reliable sources (forums are not reliable sources and cannot be linked on Wikipedia as a reference) No specific model player list is allowed. The section headers only exist to provide readers the quickest link back to the appropriate player list. Hope that helps. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for that clarification, It is very difficult to discern which players are notable for which instrument from the list, if the player or model could become highlighted when the link is followed that would certainly help and make this way of moderating who goes in the list justified, as it is it is not very user friendly. There are notable players not in the list from a Byrdland Perspective Anthony Wilson for one Wayne bennett for another, Charlie Dennis also Izzy Stradlin might not qualify although he has a Byrdland listed in his gear on his own fan site. The list I posted earlier can be supported with citations to original sources showing each of the artists using the instrument, whether their use would be noteable in some cases would perhaps fall within the Maddonna criteria which I read with some amusement. I think Gibson would probably agree that all of the players mentioned above are notable players.

On the question of Shipping figures I am still awaiting an answer with interest. it is a link that is not a forum it is a presentation of varifiable information just presented in a better way than Gibson have ever managed to present the information themselves. It is relevant to state in the article that only 1147 Byrdlands were shipped up to their discontinuence in 1969. Numbers for production since then are only a handful a year and easily variafieable it is however the vintage instruments that are particularly noteable. I will make a citation in the main article and post the link as a reference would that be OK do you think? On the no links to forums rule, I disagree that this is an absolute laid down by the guidelines you directed me too. There is as I have already said a link to a forum in the Les paul entry that hasn't been edited out. Whilst I am happy to agree it is better to present the information in a more edited and coherent way than from a thread in a forum, the current consensus list does not serve as a list of Noteable Byrdland Players and that list will inevitably become out of date with changing fashions etc. How then does one achieve a more accurate picture?RogerGLewis (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Real Libs. I have beeen looking at the noteable gibson players list and it is defective in quite a few aspects I have posted a link to it to the Gibson forums to get some reaction to the list and to see if my impression of it is widely shared as inadequate I'll get back to you on that in a day or so. RogerGLewis (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, especially considering many players crossed over from initially using the Les Paul to the Stratocaster, or vice versa. (Me2NiK 06:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC))

I believe Eric Clapton's influence on the popularity of the Les Paul in the mid-'60s cannot be understated. The guitar was out of production, after all, and he was the main proponent behind its resurgence. Peter Green, Jeff Beck, Jimmy Page all cite Clapton as the reason they became Les Paul players. I don't think it's a stretch at all to suggest EC saved the Les Paul. Vytal 00:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * clapton cites mike bloomfield
 * Keith Richards was the first "star" in the UK to have one and was popping up on the tube with it before anyone else did. Clapton's tie-in to the Les Paul and its popularity is linked tightly to his pairing of the guitar with a 1965 Marshall Bluesbreaker combo amp to produce "that sound". Everyone wanted "that sound" but weren't sure, at first, how to get it. In the meantime the entire globe was watching the Rolling Stones on just about every music TV program going. And Keef's 59 burst was there for all to see. And it didn't take too long before everyone else wanted one. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 21:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Jack White
Jack White has never played a Les Paul in most of his famous and mainstream years, however, it says in the article that White is a famous user of the Les Paul Junior and the Les Paul Special. White usually only plays an Airline and a Harmony Rocket, and also a Gretsch in the Raconteurs. --71.252.128.218 23:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The Digital Les Paul
linky: http://www.gibson.com/DigitalGuitarNew/gibsonDigital.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.25.46.18 (talk) 02:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Should we include the Les Paul's real name?
Should we put les paul's real name on this page, or should we just call him Les Paul throughout? I thought we could add his given name near very end, when we're talking about his gig in NYC... or near the beginning where it's stated that he created one of the first early  solid-body electric prototypes and approached Gibson without their interest.

AlSO, i hope i haven't offended anyone with my corrections/changes ,etc. I tend to want to fix writing--i'm a college english teacher. But please know that i also write for myself--poetry, fiction, faction--and correct my own writing just as much as i have here. I'm new here and new on wikipeida...so maybe i'm doing things in a non-wiki way.... but i'm just trying be myself and to help. I just wanted to add a few things and the rest is "polishing." It wasn't intended to be overbearing or to infringe, in any way. :) I also just realized that this RATHER LENGTHY LES PAUL ARTICLE... was a STUB!!!  I'm really impressed by how everyone pitched in so much info. to turn it into such an informative article.

Kudos. Thanks,smd &quot;ms. fixit.&quot; 01:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC) SarahMdaughertysmd &quot;ms. fixit.&quot; 01:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Change the Picture!
there must be a better picture somewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.123.204.10 (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
 * No free pics over at Wiki-Commons other than the LP Studio model. And most of the uploads onto Wiki nowadays are copyvios from manufacturer webpages. 156.34.232.31 22:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

epiphone les paul
http://www.epiphone.com/default.asp?ProductID=43&CollectionID=6

what about the epiphone les paul guitars as above? Where do they fit into the picture?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.207.180 (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC).


 * I think I've addressed this appropriately. Epiphones are not imitations but are "real" Les Pauls Brettr 11:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the epiphone les paul page should be combined into this page, since epiphone is owned by gibson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Produde94 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a picture of an Epiphone Les Paul headstock in this article. I think this is not appropriate for a page entitled "Gibson Les Paul" even if Epiphone is a subsidiary of Gibson. I'd appreciate if someone replaced that picture with one from a Gibson Les Paul headstock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.150.186.248 (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi ! Anytime you think it should be replaced, you can clip the existing image, and can regist the result as derivative work before using it. Collaboration is welcomed in here :) --Commons Guitarpop (talk) 09:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Advertisment?
This article, (in my opinion) is a mix between advertising and a fan site. This article needs a complete overwrite to be more "Wikipedian". I would take up the challenge, but I know nothing about the article or subject.T.o.anon84 06:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Tone of the article
I disagree with the conclusion that the article is promotional. I am very much a Fender player and have never gotten used to the 'architecture' of Gibsons nor their particular sound. However, I have always maintained a deep admiration for Gibson guitars and respect for those who play them. Further, one cannot simply overlook the profound contributions to modern music that has been made by the Les Paul. For many musicians, the instrument itself is as much an extension of their own creativity as the music they perform. Additionally, the Les Paul is somewhat iconic of the Rock n' roll era as well as musical pop culture. A neutral, emotionless and 'encyclopedic' tone to this article would fail to convey to the reader a proper scope of appreciation for and understanding of the instrument. J.Roth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.206.15 (talk) 09:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's not just a piece of furniture. THe guitar has a character that's almost "human-like". 156.34.221.137 12:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"Black Beauty" is a nickname. It was never used by Gibson until fairly recently, but still not in any official capacity. However, this nickname is well known colloquially. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.232.225 (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Les Paul Faded/LesPaul special.
The Faded is not a stablised special it has been built to a different specification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IamBrianBlessed (talk • contribs) 21:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I propose that Epiphone Les Paul be merged into this article. This is the article for the Les Paul guitar; the Epiphone is a licenced copy and should be covered by this article. Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The Epiphone Les Paul must stay like it is, the Epiphone G-400 is not merged into the Gibson SG article because is not a real "SG" but its well known too so the Epiphone Les Paul should not be merged and should be completed with more information. Greetings, Luyano (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No - I disagree. The Gibson Les Paul is a unique artefact with its own design values. The Epiphone Les Paul is a copy, licensed or otherwise, and should be considered separately. Stratocastermagic (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The Epiphone Les Paul article should be merged but have its own section within the Gibson Les Paul Article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.130.225 (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless we all agree that merging the Epiphone page with the Gibson page is prudent (seeing as how Gibson has owned Epiphone for longer than they were an independent company), then there is absolutely no reason to merge the Epi Paul with the Gibson Paul. Don't do it-- they are separate guitars with separate history, separate goals and separate production processes.71.135.46.58 (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a strong connexion b/w the two "brands" but articles must be maintained separately with strong cross references allowed of course. FLV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.79.104.28 (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no mention on the Gibson Les Paul Traditional
Why is there no mention on the Gibson Les Paul Traditional? --Nothingbutgrains (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

First electric guitar
By this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Beauchamp --Ericg33 (talk) 06:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Corrected spelling errors on Jimmy Page section
There was some incredibly embarrassing spelling errors in that section that had to be corrected.--70.250.117.163 (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The entire section had been needlessly bloated recently. If there is a lot of worthy content then it should go into a separate article. Model sub-sections are meant to be an overview. GripTheHusk (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There is also some incorrect information involving how Jimmy's Les Paul neck was shaved to its elliptical profile, the guitar was purchased from Joe Walsh with the modifications already made in 1969, all Jimmy did was replace the bridge pickup(presumably his original went bad), the output jack(due to wear and tear) and the stock tuners with the grovers because he was more familiar with them from his 1960 LP Custom that was stolen. That should also be noted as Gibson has released a Jimmy Page LP Custom based on the stolen 1960 model he used.70.130.58.242 (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

historical significance/popularity
forgive my lack of references-i can point you to a book co-authored by tony bacon (this book has references as well). at the time of the les paul introduction, gibson was the leader in professional electric guitars, which were mostly archtop models fitted with electronics, as well as a maker of amplifiers. while gibson took note of fender's solidbody, it was seen mostly as a novelty than serious competition. while les paul popular and also a proponent of building a solid body electric, and his endorsement did help with sales, it is significant to note that the les paul was only mildly popular upon its introduction. to spite improvements, sales continued to drop until it was discontinued in favor og the sg-style boby, which improved sales (but still only mildly popular when compared to other models). the change of color from gold to sunburst was an attempt to improve sales (consider that a correction-fender custom colors were not popular yet as they are today in hindsight). less than 1800 les paul standard in sunburst were shipped. (again referncing this book, which references gibson records for this). the significance of this is when blues and rock hit the scene, 2 notable players-eric clapton and micheal bloomfeild-were both pictured using this les paul for that "new sound", and started a demand for the lp standard for prefessional guitar players. this led to other players aquiring this guitar, which led to a demand for this discontinued model, and for the first time used guitars were priced more than new ones, which started the the market for rare guitars. gibson did not begin making the model again until 1968, (the 1st reissues) and then, still only offered the model in gold (and without the humbucking pickups that contributed to its demand) and the custom in black, which in turn only made the origional sunburst models MORE desirable. with the popularity of rock and roll, the les paul (along with the fender strat and tele) became on of the most popular guitars in history. the rarity and desireability of the origional lp standard in sunburst made it easily the most valueable guitar to be had. Sfsteiner (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)sfsteiner

Link in Origins section
The link for the neck type displays as "set", not "set-in", and I haven’t yet learned how to fix the way a link displays. Jimeffindandy (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Learned how. All fixed. Jimeffindandy (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sorry for the lack of response. I guess not many people must watch this particular page. Feel free to leave a message on my Talk page if you have any specific questions. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Would like to see...
I would like to see an article on CMT custom Epiphone Les Paul Special II that was a give-away. I have seen no mention of this. http://web.archive.org/web/20060614224222/www.cmt.com/shows/events/cmt_summer_of_music/rules.jhtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.31.114 (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

machine heads
I would be interested to know what machine heads were used in the production history of the Les Paul guitar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.161.111 (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

A couple of oddities...
At least two issues. First of all the reference to the "Kahler tremolo system". If this was first marketed in 1979, how could it appear on some 1958 - 1960 Les Pauls? I think somebody added this without reading the preceding text carefully enough. Secondly there is a reference to a "Special-Special, 1964" which makes no sense at all - no Les Pauls at all were produced in 1964! I think that this is either a well-meaning contributor who has got his or her facts wrong, or a malicious spammer. 79.78.32.217 (talk) 12:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

LP 50s and 60s Studio Trubite
The 50s and 60s Studio Tribute models need to be covered, probably at Gibson Les Paul Studio. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signature Models section reads like an advertisement.
There were some mentions of the promotional nature of the article; here ("Advertisment?"), although s/he didn't go into much detail, and here ("Tone of the article"), from a person who doesn't believe that the article is too promotional.

Most of this article is not too promotional. However, when the article reaches the Signature Models section, it takes a turn for the worse. The section about [|Jeff Beck's custom Oxblood Les Paul] uses far too many adjectives, and has a lengthy preamble unnecessary and unsuited for a Wikipedia article. It has too many opinions for an encyclopedia, which is what Wikipedia is.

In an attempt to rewrite the section so it would better reflect Wikipedian views, I discovered that the section was copied and pasted from the Gibson website itself. Take a look.

Unfortunately, I do not have the resources to write any edits at this time. However, I can suggest an alternate source for the writing of this article, despite the fact that it also has a fair amount of bias: the Gibson website's history of the guitar.

69.86.57.119 (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, and so have undertaken some edits, although further are needed. Aside from this copy & pasted content being inappropriate for Wikipedia it's amazing that Gibson would write this crap themselves as such hyperbole PR-speak is counterproductive ... and I hope their standard of guitar building is superior to their dreadul standard of written English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.205.144 (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Les Paul Supreme
There is a category of Gibson Les Paul guitars, the Les Paul Supreme, that has been overlooked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.26.133.138 (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the top that there is a Supreme version of the Les Paul for several years. See the following links from the Gibson Website. Most of the current supreme models seem to all have a distinct globe headstock emblem and Supreme banner other than the crown or split diamond design. Typically have the rounded 50's neck, gold hardware and the most distinctive AAAA flame top and back with binding on both the front and back similar to some of the custom models.

Not sure why the section below about the "Paulverisor" is in the Supreme section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.144.206.36 (talk) 06:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The "Les Paulverisor" was a Les Paul guitar owned and played by Dany Gatton that was equipped with an Echoplex attached to the front of the guitar. Danny never claimed or said that it was attributed to Les Paul or Les Paul guitars. It was merely something that Danny put together himself. Les Paul knew Danny and saw Danny play many times. He knew that Danny had the utmost respect for Les and he never tried to comercialize or promote the "Les Paulverisor" (as Danny Called it) as anything besides what it was; simply a Les Paul guitar with an Echoplex. Danny was a famous gutarist in his own right. Gibson produced a Danny Gatton model of a Telecaster in their Custom Shop, which is a sought after colectable today. Danny was featured in many articles, perhaps tha most famous was a cover story in Guitar Player magazine titled "The Best Guitarist You never Heard". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pawnmon (talk • contribs) 06:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Didn't Danny actually refer to the mod as the "Magic Dingus Box?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.127.181.211 (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments and questions
I read the article and made dozens of corrections to the text, either because the text was weird, incorrect or its style was mediocre. I also made a major effort to improve the layout of the article by shuffling and distributing images in a way that looks pleasing to the eye. I would like to add a few comments and questions:

1. Is it Deluxe or DeLuxe? Two spellings coexist in the article.

2. "these full size versions of the Deluxe were "Standard" spec."

Does "spec" stand for "specifications"? If that is the case, the word should be spelled out and not abbreviated.

3. "It came in Ebony, Cherry Sunburst, Tobacco Sunburst or Gold finishes."

This sentence doesn't make sense. Colors are completely unrelated to finishes. They are two different things. In addition, is it necessary to capitalize?

4. The section on the Gibson Dusk Tiger is quite vague.

5. "In 2004, the Gibson Custom Shop introduced the Slash Signature Les Paul Standard, a guitar that Gibson has used ever since as the "standard" non limited edition Slash Les Paul (this guitar is in the Gibson range all year round)."

This sentence is horrible and it needs to be fixed.

6. "The Jeff Beck Oxblood is available in limited numbers. The first 50 of these historic guitars were aged at Gibson Custom to look like Beck’s original".

Should it be "Gibson Custom Shop"?

ICE77 (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

keith richards
Keith Richards was really the musician who introduced the Les Paul into popular/rock music. He was playing it in 1963. In fact, Clapton only started playing it as he was a Richards fan.

I agree Eric popularized it, as Keith stopped playing it after 18 months, but he Keith needs a mention in it’s history

Cjmooney9 (talk)

Big Jim Sullivan who was Marty Wilde's guitarist had a Gibson in 1960. It was the first Gibson in the UK. Marty bought it from Sister Rosetta Tharpe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.161.160 (talk) 10:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

2013 Standard and Traditional
Does anyone know if Gibson made any notable changes in 2013 to their Standard and Traditional lineup? therewillbehotcake (talk) 08:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

No mention of the Les Paul Artist.
The Les Paul Artist was only made for 3 years...1979, 1980, and 1981. I have a 1980.

The Artist was the only Gibson guitar that I know of that came with onboard electronics, and the only guitar I know of whose electronics was based on the Moog Synthesizer. In addition to the knobs (only three of them), there is a row of three, three-position toggle switches that control certain aspects of the synthesizer electronics.

It's quite a unique guitar, with a wide range of sound possible, from muddy to extremely bright. It's hard and touchy to adjust, but you can get virtually any sound from the guitar. Neutral on all switches and knobs (except for the volume, of course) gives you a standard Les Paul sound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.72.49 (talk) 07:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Signature models section undue weight
Does the Signature Models section need to include so many models? I propose we cut out models that hold little no contribution to the history or use of the guitar. Yes, that will require some decision making. This is an encyclopedia entry on the guitar itself, but this massive section turns into a Gibson advertisement for signature models. Obvious models such as the Slash, Zakk Wylde, and Jimmy Page runs are relevant to the history of the guitar, but jewels of text such as this contribute nothing but word salad:
 * "Steve Jones, of the Sex Pistols, signed a Les Paul Custom with pin-up girl stickers."
 * "Matt Heafy, of Trivium is working on a signature 6 string and 7 string Les Paul with Epiphone." An Epiphone? In the Gibson article?

Are other artists' guitars, such as Paul Landers, Chad Kroeger, Buckethead, and Sammy Hagar, really needed in this entry? Stratocaster27''t@lk 16:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

With no comments here, I went ahead and changed it. Along with the rest of the article. It still needs work, but at least the article makes sense now. --Stratocaster27''t@lk 17:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

SG Les Paul
Most information in the the SG section lacked sources. There is a popular information around that Gibson kept using "Les Paul" name on SG's until 1963 because they had too many truss rod covers with Les Paul name on them. Actually Gibson used Les' names until 1963 because that was when the deal between them came to an end. A citation was added. I also removed the information about SG initially standing for Second Generation, since almost all sources around, including the two I included in the section, give the same information: SG means Solid Guitar, instead of Second Generation, and the article didn't provide a source to support the claims that once SG was supposed to mean "Second Generation".

Gibson Les Paul Acoustic not included in subcategories
The Gibson Les Paul Acoustic was in production during 2001-2002. Although not that many were made I believe there were enough that it should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.54.135 (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)