I have a dumb acoustic guitar. I want to buy a electric guitar. I can't decide between Les Paul, or Fender. What do you guys suggest and why. What are the pros and cons of each. Thanks!
i've played both and fenders are good for faster songs while les pauls have a better sound. personally, i would get neither, just get a esp, but if i had to, would get a les paul
Ibanez is pretty sweet... Personally, I think that les pauls are the more classy of the two. But you could probably get a decent Fender for cheaper. I think Fender's have a little more range, too. But, I don't see why you should pigeonhole yourself between these two brands. Shop around. Go to a nice guitar shop and actually play a few. Personal feel is probably the most important thing.
The Fender and Les Paul are both amazing guitars. If you want a 1/4 review of both of them, here it is:
Les Paul:
The Les Paul has many series. John Lennon used one and played it amazingly. It is much more expensive than a Fender. The LP has better sound quality simply because you can hear the notes clearer and there isn't such a fuzzy sound as you get with the Fender. You can get the Les Paul in whatever version you think is necessary for your playing. I just suggest that you don't get the 200's because, in my opinion, they look ugly. The more recent Pauls' look stunning and a good buy. It will leave a massive hole in your budget if bought.
Fender:
Although cheap, the Fender looks nicely similar to the Les Paul. As i said before, the sound quality isn't as nice but it is much cheaper. You need to be precise on the technique aswell.
Overall, they are both very nice guitars. If you are willing to spend a lot of money, get the Les Paul; if you don't have a high budget but would like something that is good for it's price, get the Fender.
P.S. Sorry that i may be a bit late on this thread, i shut my computer and did't go on it for about 2 days. I thought to myself that i might aswell finish it considering how much i had already done. I hope you forgive me.
