Back in December I purchased a new Gibson Les Paul Classic.  I’ve been playing Les Pauls for years, so I was looking forward playing the new Classic, which came equipped with higher-output pickups and a fast, slim taper neck.

The guitar arrived, and it looked beautiful - the finish was smooth and fretwork was  precise and gorgeous.  But when I removed it from the case, something wasn’t right.  This Les Paul felt light… very light.  It had a slightly different sound to it too, even before I plugged it in I could tell from its acoustic tone.  Did Gibson change the Les Paul?  Yes, they did.

Without telling customers, Gibson decided to add weight-relieving chambers to most Les Paul models in 2007, including the Standard, Studio, and Classic.  Alright, that doesn’t sound too bad, right?  Gibson has been adding weight-relieving holes to the Les Paul guitars since the 1980s.  But this is different - the chambered Les Pauls are gutted to the point of being semi-hollow body guitars.  That’s no exaggeration.  Nowhere was this mentioned on their website or through any retailers - only on some obscure Gibson blog was there a short article on it.  Gibson was smart enough to realize that advertising this new process would surely turn off Les Paul purists - and it is the purists that generally buy a Les Paul.

:: X-ray image showing chambers in 2007 Les Paul - click on image to enlarge ::

Gibson claims that through “scientific analysis” they designed the chambers such that the Les Paul tone would not be affected, and if anything it would increase sustain.  Wait - removing wood from the guitar increases sustain?  That doesn’t make sense to me.  When this process started generating controversy on message boards, Gibson finally admitted to it on their sales website.

Why would Gibson chamber the guitars?  They claim it’s for weight relief, though I suspect it’s so Gibson can use lower-quality cuts of mahogany in their guitars.  Remember that the more expensive mahogany is lighter, so using less expensive grades of wood would produce a Les Paul of extraordinary weight.

Gibson has since introduced a new model, the Les Paul Traditional, which does not include the chambered body.   The Classic is now discontinued, and the Studio and Standard remains chambered.  The good news is the Traditional’s price is right in line with the Classic and Standard, and the new Slash model is not chambered as well.   Nevertheless, I feel that Gibson’s lack of disclosure was dishonest, and sent them an email expression my concern and feelings about my new Classic.  I never received a reply.

:: It looks like a Les Paul, but inside it’s entirely different - click on image to enlarge ::

There are two camps on Gibson’s chambering - those that see it as a good thing, and those that do not.  Some claim that chambered Les Pauls sound better.  My experience tells me that chambered Les Pauls have less sustain and overall body to their sound.  After plugging in my Classic to my Marshall JCM 2555SL, it immediately became clear to me that Gibson’s claims about chambering were all just bullshit - sustain and tone were severely compromised.   Even my Floyd Rose-equipped Jackson easily sustained longer than the new Les Paul.

I purchased a Les Paul because of its traditional design, feel, and tone.  When Gibson altered the design, the Les Paul lost the very appeal that made it legendary.  I sold my Classic, and I’ll likely buy a Traditional or Slash model to take its place.

Related Links:

• Gibson USA website