Title pretty much says it. I'm in the market for a new guitar. Thinking a epiphone les paul or firebird. Nothing too pricey looking to spend 500$ - 550$. Thought Maybe I could get some insight from some other guitarists.

Discuss

http://www.musiciansfriend.com/product/Epiphone-Firebird-Studio-Guitar?sku=519377

No link for a les paul..i mean there are like a million of them...

[edit] example for les paul: http://www.musiciansfriend.com/product/Epiphone-Limited-Edition-Les-Paul-Standard-Plus-Electric-Guitar?sku=519393

http://www.musiciansfriend.com/product/Epiphone-Les-Paul-Ultra-Electric-Guitar?sku=518770

Les Paul looks nice.

Hoping for a little knowledge on experience or sound wise or second hand experience.

I'm more of a keyboardist/computer music/sound guy, but I do play a (very) little guitar and know a few guitarists. I've seen both of these types of guitars. I also have The Guitar Handbook handy for historical perspective.

The LP is pretty much standard fare. You have a lot of options out there for the price you are thinking of. There are fewer for the firebird - I think there's just the one Epiphone Firebird Studio for under your price range.

I don't think there's a universal difference in sound. The Gibson "exotics" (the "V", Explorer, and Firebird) were really designs just to pump up the sales and show people Gibson was "modern" in the 50's. I don't think there was an effort at innovation of sound or playability. You generally get two humbuckers either way. The differences are going to be in the quality of the individual guitars.

As for playability, there may be a slight difference: At the price range you are looking at, Firebirds are the "reverse" design (non-reverse bodies are more expensive). In general, it may be easier to play the LP's last few frets than it is on the Firebird, because the cutaway is maybe 2 frets deeper on the LP. Personally, I hack away at the chords and never venture into those high notes. I think it's down to looks.

I recall that the Firebird's neck was a little bigger than a LP(wider or thicker, I can't recall - just that I had a hard time playing it with my fairly average-sized hands) and may have been a bit heavier. Maybe the neck was heavier.

Anyway, it boils down to: Try them both out in the store. I don't think either is a bad choice. Go with the Firebird if it's comfortable for you and you like the unusual shape - because everybody's got a Les Paul-ish guitar.

And now: An actual guitarist will put me in my place.

I do venture in to the higher notes. I'm not a chord rhythm type of player. I like soloing and lead. So my hand is all over the neck of the guitar and faster playing. I can't really try them in a store as it's a small town here and they all pretty much carry strats which i already have (squier). Not too impressed with it's quality or sound and need an upgrade. Vintage sound/blues/southern rock is what i am going for. And as for quality something where the frets don't stick out and catch my hands and the neck with a nice finish on it.

I do really appreciate the input whistler :) I do however would like more input from various people.

By and large, I find that Les Pauls have a much wider variety of sounds available. If you get an old Les Paul with a pair of P90's, you get a completely different sound than a new Les Paul with humbuckers in both positions, and, of course, that only touches the surface. However, because of their relative unpopularity there's just not that much choice in the Firebird.

Whistler does have a point that a huge factor is how it feels, of course. As a strat player, you're probably not going to be that comfortable with either a LP or a Firebird -- they both have a different balance point than a strat, and if you try to hold them the same way, it'll be weird. You might consider looking at an SG for something that's a little more similar. Of course, I started on a strat myself and I play a Les Paul exclusively now, so who knows?

((Node: If this sounds disjointed, it's because I've been coding for the last 14 hours)

I don't really care how it feels. I can easily adapt.

I saw a few reviews. it sounds like the Firebird Studio is a bit neck-heavy, to the point that some people have moved the strap pin to accomodate the weight. There's a little controversy about the pickups - some like em and some don't (pickups are easily replaced, however). There were many good comments about fit and finish, nice tuning engines, nice fretboard, good sustain due to the rigid build. Overall, it sounds like a nice guitar.

So rogue says les paul and whistler says firebird :) I would like some more input from other people too if there are other people to uh...input things. Or just more in general. Not trying to be demanding just figured if people brought up various points it would be easier to decide maybe or at least easier to get information before making a decision. And I am very thankful.

Reeee

Speaking from experience, the Les Paul is great guitar all-around. There's a reason it's one of the most popular guitars in the world. It plays well, has a great thick tone, and has classic looks.

Both guitars will probably sound very similar to you. They both have humbuckers (which create a thicker sound and drive your amp a bit harder) and the differences between the different types of humbuckers in the 2 guitars will likely be trivial to an untrained ear. I think you should go play both and pick whichever one feels better and plays better for you. That's the most important thing.

I would if I could. Small town no guitars in it other than the basic strat.

So go out of town! I'm sure there's a Gibson dealer within driving distance. You never, ever want to buy a guitar without playing it first. Seriously. Just... don't.

I'm looking for other people's opinions on the guitars in question. I'm not worried about how it feels. I can just adapt, which can be done if you just practice. I'm looking for people's direct opinions on the guitars. The only les paul gibson around here just happens to be left freakin' handed. It'sa left handed ultra i believe like in the link.

18 reviews for the Firebird:

http://www.musiciansfriend.com/srs7/product/reviews/base_pid=519377/rpp=10/

761+ reviews for a Les Paul (I chose near the top of your price range):

http://www.musiciansfriend.com/srs7/product/reviews/base_pid=518341/rpp=10/

Incidentally, I ignore most of the complaints about staying in tune with a new guitar. Most experienced guitarists dump the factory strings and replace them with better quality strings right away. They tend to make sure all the parts are aligned and tight while they're at it. Also, I wonder how long it takes a guitar to acclimate to the temperature and humidity of it's new environment?

Is there really that much ofa difference between the les pauls? There are seriously dozens of differently named ones all at the same price. The ultra that i posted earlier only comes in that color. If i could have a blue one like the standard plus top that doesn't play any different from the others I would be extremely happy...I like blue...my strat is blue too

Slightly off-topic: I'm pissed at GuitarCenter.com for sending me the wrong color guitar. TWICE!

My son wants a red guitar (naturally, for a 7 y/o) for his first-ever electric guitar, and twice they send me a very unpleasant yellow one. Yellow! Even black I could have worked with. Now I'm out of pocket for both guitars until the returns process.

Anyway, I hate them, and so should you.

/edit: I like them again. We agreed on a different (better) guitar that they knocked $50 off of (making it the same price as the original), and they agreed to send it to me next-day-air for free. They also gave me credit for the guitar that's still in the air on the way back to them so I'm not out of pocket. Score! It pays to be relentless and polite.

Touriaus, the biggest difference sound-wise between different models of Les Pauls will be the pickups. Different models sometimes use different pickups. However, they all use humbuckers and will sound at least fairly similar.

Guitars and tone are notoriously subjective things. Lots of different people will have lots of different opinions. If you honestly can't play either in person and the reviews are equally good for both, just pick which one you think looks cooler. You can't go wrong either way. Epiphone makes a nice guitar.

(although you can get a LP with P90's, which aren't humbuckers, I don't think Epiphone makes one)

(also, FS85 is right; Epiphone does make an awesome guitar. Comparing an Epiphone to a "real" Gibson and a Squier to a "real" Fender, the Epiphone is much closer to the original)

Well lets see. Seems a LP would be the right choice. But a firebird just seems "different" and cool. Then again different and cool doesn't matter much in comparison to quality. So some agree firebird or LP would be a great choice either way? But Seems a lot of people are leaning towards the LP. So lets see if we go with the LP (still haven't made up my mind if i want the LP or firebird) which one? Ultra or Standard Plus Top? I like the color of ultra but if i can get a blue plus top I'd like that, but I have to wonder if the words in the LP mean anything. I mean what the hell is "limited edition standard plus" supposed to mean? Contradicts itself. So I guess what I mean is: Ultra = fancy marketing word, or is there a real difference compared to "standard plus" >_>

Thanks for the input so far I *really* appreciate it.

(LP ultra and standard plus top and firebird all have the same humbuckers.)

There's very little difference between the different Epi Les Pauls. Personally, I like a LP studio because it sounds at least as good as any other LP, but costs massive amounts of money less. It's a bit less flashy, but who cares about that?

Anyhow, if you really must spend the extra money, a Les Paul Standard is where the awesome is at.