|
|
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 7230
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | I have heard this term over the years to refer to the solidbody Viper as the "Poor Man's Les Paul". I don't really see it, but my question for the gurus out there... What is the where, when, who, and why of this phrase? |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2002
Posts: 8307
Location: Tennessee | Can't answer your questions as I've not heard this before, but I consider my Hamer Mirage II a poor (but smart!) man's LP ... not the Viper. I think of my Viper as more of a alternative to a Tele. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2002
Posts: 14127
Location: 6 String Ranch | The Viper was designed with the tele very much in mind. Don't know where the phrase came from. I would think it would apply more to the Hamers, which by and large are better unless you're talking to a "59 Les Paul homo". You'll never get through that mind set. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2002
Posts: 1196
Location: Lafayette, Louisiana | I love the solidbody Viper. Sounds like the best Telecasters I have heard. Great pickups. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 7230
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | I have always felt the Viper was more a cross between the Les Paul and Strat, but now that you mention it.... tele is probably more accurate.
I like the 24 frets, and the the very hot pickups. I think this will always be my favorite solidbody. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2002
Posts: 93
Location: Canada | Gibson Les Pauls are overpriced guitars which makes the Viper look cheap. However, the I'll give up an Les Paul anyday for a Viper. The Viper neck will out rule the Les Paul anyday: thin, fast and easy to play. The Les Paul on the other hand have over painted thick necks which have a huge thick layer of finish which I really really hate. Even pickup/sound wise, I prefer the Viper. Yes Les Pauls are nice but Vipers are better. Just the price tag makes the statement, but I don't think quality or playability does. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2002
Posts: 5750
Location: Scotland | I've seen the "poor man's Les Paul" description used on ebay by sellers who wouldn't know a decent guitar if it bit them on the ass. The Viper has nothing in common with Les Pauls other than the fact that it's a single cutaway. The neck to body joint is different, the scale length is different, the pickup design is vastly different, and it has a 2 octave neck. Here's another perspective (& my tongue is firmly in my cheek here) The Tele is a poor man's Viper, the Strat a poor man's Viper 3. A poor man's UK2 would be a Les Paul.
[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: Paul Templeman ] |
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 7230
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | I agree with you Paul. I have heard the comment once in a while since in the 80's. I don't agree with it... I think more like you do on this as I see no resemble at all... that's why I posted the question. The more I search I think maybe it's just a reference folks have used over the years for any non-Les Paul. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
May 2002
Posts: 3005
Location: Las Cruces, NM | As a Viper owner I lean towards the Tele comparison, and would agree with the statement that the tele is the poor man's Viper. This whole thread is giving me a swelled head that will recede when I realize my playing limitations. I'm a 60's country fan of Buck Owens, Merle Haggard, Waylon, so tele rules IMHO.
Bailey |
|
| |
Poor Man's Les Paul
