The Abomination of Chambering

A discussion on the alteration of the traditional Les Paul guitar design by the practice of hollowing out the guitar's "solid" body, based largely on my own personal opinion.

The Les Paul design for a solid body electric guitar became one of the most popular electric guitar designs in history, achieving a status of Legendary or even Iconic, while also being known as one of the heaviest electric guitars on the market. Despite the overwhelming success of the guitar's design, Gibson (the guitar manufacturer who retains the rights to the name Les Paul) decided to covertly start altering the near sacred design of the Les Paul by hollowing out the solid body of the guitar in order to make the guitar lighter. Why is making the guitar lighter a problem? I'll get to that below.

The Discovery Process: In the last few months of 2006, almost all of the Gibson Les Paul model guitars began receiving the weight relieving treatment known as Chambering, which continues to be a standard practice today. Gibson didn't make any big announcements that they were making such a significant change to the Les Paul design, they just did it. I guess they wanted to see if anyone noticed.

Around that same time frame, (before I became a fan of the Heritage Guitars) Gibson ran my favorite Gibson dealer out of business because they didn't make their sales quota for the year and so I bought another Les Paul Studio model from them before they closed their doors for good. (Both the Gibson Les Paul Studio and Gibson Les Paul Custom models utilize the 490T and 490R pickups which are my favorite Gibson pickups.) I liked the solid black guitar. It had a few flaws but I told myself it was no big deal. Well, eventually, the flaws started to stick out more and more, so I decided to call Gibson to get their opinion. I described how the book matched mahogany back had a raised seam running up and down the back of the body and how one of the 6 pickup cover screws could not be screwed down into position like the other screws and it was interfering with the string operation.

To my surprise, Gibson didn't give me the "sucks to be you" speech I was expecting but instead was concerned about the quality of my guitar and asked me to ship it to them so they could have a look at it. Gibson then informed me that they were replacing my guitar with another one and shipped to me a new guitar with absolutely flawless craftsmanship. Gibson even replicated the string set-up which I had on the original guitar before sending me the new one.

But something was different about that replacement guitar ,and at the time, I couldn't quite put my finger on what was different, but something was definitely different. Later, I heard a rumor about Gibson hollowing out the solid bodies of the Les Paul guitars in order to make them lighter. In disbelief, I called Gibson to ask them about this directly.
Yes. It was confirmed, and I was even told the exact month where the change had taken place in their production line. I was in shock! Before that call to Gibson ended, I told the guy I was talking to that I was a multiple Gibson USA guitar owner and that I would never buy another Gibson Les Paul that was weight relieved through chambering, and asked him to document my words and pass them on to the people who run the company to which he told me that I could still buy an unchambered Les Paul Custom. ($5000.00 each. Uh... no. Thanks anyway.)
Later, I was able to confirm through comparing the serial numbers of my original guitar and the replacement I received, that I had sent Gibson a non-chambered guitar and they sent me a chambered guitar. Shortly after that I realized that the replacement guitar just didn't feel right, it was too difficult to play, and so I traded it in at Guitar Center towards a Paul Reed Smith guitar.

Everybody's doing it: Has your Mom ever given you the line, "If your friends want to jump off a bridge, are you going to do it too?" So, Gibson started chambering their "solid body" guitars, making them "hollowed-out body" guitars, and I guess everyone thinks that Gibson can do no wrong and everyone wants to be like Gibson so, even though chambering is a bad idea, other manufacturers started jumping on the chambering bandwagon as well.

Around 2007, while planning my next PRS guitar purchase and also chasing down another rumor that Paul Reed Smith guitars were also being chambered, I called PRS Guitars to ask them directly about this, just as I had done with Gibson. I spoke to one of the craftsmen at PRS Guitars who confirmed for me that they were in fact chambering their solid body guitars to make them lighter. I told the craftsman (who's name I have since forgotten) that this revelation was stressing me out because I can't play a light weight guitar... the neck doesn't stay put when I release my grip on the fret board to move my hand to a different fret position on the neck... they're unstable... I don't like them.

The craftsman at PRS Guitars told me that they would prefer to not chamber the guitars because doing so adds time and cost to the manufacturing process. He also told me that their Mark Tremonti signature model guitar was not chambered because "Mark won't let us chamber it" or something to that effect. So, similar to my experience with Gibson, I still have the option to buy an non-chambered guitar if I am willing to pay more and limit my options to a specific signature model guitar.

Why make the Les Paul lighter? Gibson is sometimes perceived to be a huge corporate entity which is more interested in selling guitars than making great guitars. While that is probably an unfair assessment of the company, this perception was fueled by the perceived desire on Gibson's part to sell a Les Paul to a much wider group of guitar buyers... one that included what I call the young MTV musician crowd and their guitar playing fans. While talking to a number of guitar sales people, I learned that these young people weren't buying the Les Paul guitars because they thought the guitars were "too heavy". I too met one girl who didn't want a Les Paul because she thought they were too heavy.

Upon hearing this, my first thoughts were... 1. The die hard Les Paul fans will never go for that. 2. Who cares what those sissies think? A Les Paul is supposed to be heavy. On the one hand, I can appreciate Gibson's desire to sell more guitars. They simply must do this if they are going to maintain the ability to mass produce guitars. Once you achieve the ability to mass produce guitars, you are condemned to always mass produce guitars and continually sell lots of guitars if you are going to survive. But on the other hand, to tamper with a legendary design which has stood the test of time? There must be a better way. Does Gibson think that catering to the young MTV musician crowd and their guitar playing fans while alienating all the guitar buyers who have made the Les Paul a legend over the past decades is a good thing?

Musician Feedback: The idea occurred to me that of all the musicians I have ever met, I have never heard a bass guitar player complain about the weight of their bass guitar.... and that includes the one band I was in where we had a female bass guitarist. What follows is my own unscientific survey where I am trying to figure out if I am the only one who prefers a traditional weight Les Paul guitar, or if others also feel this way. I am beginning this unscientific survey with the feedback I received from the first bass guitar player I ever worked with from my very first garage band, Kirby.

Me: So, what is your take on the weight of your bass guitar? Is it fine the way it is or would you prefer that it be hollowed out like they are starting to do with the Gibson guitars so that it wouldn't weigh too much?

Kirby: "...I've never had a problem with the weight of a guitar. You need some of the solidity and weight for added sustain. In fact, it bothers me when some basses and guitars are too light."

Mark Tremonti: As mentioned above, he prefers that his signature model PRS guitar not receive the weight relief treatment.

Slash: In this video, right at the beginning of the video, Slash makes a point to mention that his Gibson signature model guitar is not weight relieved. CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO

Jim Clarke: (Some guy I met through a Craigslist ad.) "I don't much care for anything other than a Custom, or Custom shop model anymore myself, I can't deal with the "Chambering", Guess I'm old school, but a Les Paul is supposed to be heavy." "...I think a lot of the old school folks feel the same way..."

One Salesman I talked to: (There's always one.) He said that he is getting old and his shoulder can't take a heavy guitar any more. I told him to start using a wider guitar strap. If I used one of those skinny little $5.00 cheap straps, my shoulder would hurt too.

That one girl I mentioned above: (At the time I was trying to sell her my Goldtop with soapbar pickups) She plays tree-huggin' hippie music and probably would be better off with an acoustic guitar as opposed to a Les Paul.

It seems to me that more people favor the traditional weight of the Les Paul model guitar as opposed to the new design that offers weight relief through chambering. Why do I prefer the heavier version of the Les Paul? I'll answer that below when I detail the things that are wrong with chambering.

Tone: Chambering a solid body guitar like the Les Paul design is going to change the tone of the instrument. The question is then whether you like the tone produced by the chambered guitar body or prefer the original tone produced by the original un-chambered body.

Tone is a subject that absolutely everyone talks about. Guitar manufacturers, pickup manufacturers... just, everybody. I've also noticed that whatever they are talking about always, without fail, always has "great tone". I realize that no manufacturer of a product is going to say that they cut some corners to save money and the tone sucks but the product looks really cool!

The truth is that "great tone" is a very vague term as it is subject to the personal opinion of those who are evaluating a particular product. It also has a lot to do with the particular guitar tone that you, as an artist, are looking for in your own particular composition. That is why there is a seemingly endless variety of pickup designs for electric guitars.

What kind of music do you want to play? The traditional Les Paul design became a legend by producing a wide variety of different tones to meet the demands of a wide range of musicians from many different genres. If you prefer the tone of the new chambered body design for your particular kind of music, great! But if you are a hard rock or heavy metal musician, you may find that the bold and powerful tones that you are accustomed to are now replaced by a weaker, disorganized tone that sounds poor while running the guitar through heavy distortion. You may also notice a loss of sustain.

Big Fat Beefy Tone: Over the years, and during live performances, I've learned to recognize the difference between the big fat beefy tone of an unchambered Les Paul Custom and other popular guitars. Two examples...
Example # 1. Ted Nugent playing his American Flag Gibson Les Paul model guitar (Custom Shop) for some songs and then switching over to his Zebra Striped Paul Reed Smith guitar for other songs.
Example # 2. Alex Lifeson of Rush performing at a recent concert tour, he played a LOT of different guitars, but I paid particular attention to the difference in sound between the black Gibson Les Paul Custom with gold hardware and the Paul Reed Smith guitar that he brought out.

In both cases, both guitars sounded really good, but only the Les Paul guitars would I describe as having a big fat beefy tone. The PRS guitars did sound good, but they didn't have the same fullness of the Les Pauls. I would describe them as having a "thinner" tone. Look, if the song you are playing calls for a thinner tone on your guitar, by all means, either have a push/pull knob installed on your Les Paul to cut your humbucker pickups into single coil pickups for that particular song, (like I have on my black H-157) or spend thousands of dollars on a PRS guitar and play that when you don't need any big fat beefy tone. There's nothing wrong with doing that. My beef is the alteration of the Les Paul guitar design.

Sustain: What sustain? I'm not exactly a rocket scientist but my limited understanding of the laws of physics tells me that if you reduce mass from the foundation of the instrument, you are going to seriously affect the ability of the instrument to sustain a note. Gibson says that their chambered body increases sustain. Let's just say I'm skeptical. I've owned a lot of guitars and I have never heard a guitar sustain a note longer than any of my Heritage H-157's and I don't have thousands of dollars to experiment with one of the new chambered Gibson Les Paul guitars.

Truth In Advertising: What I take issue with is that Gibson made the drastic change to the body without telling anyone. People such as myself could inadvertently wind up getting stuck with one of those light weight guitars and shopping for a pre-owned guitar becomes more of a challenge when shopping for a used guitar via the online market places. As the years have gone by since the change, Gibson has slowly become more clear when describing their products with regard to chambering while Paul Reed Smith really doesn't talk about it at all.

The Heritage, under their new ownership has begun to offer chambered, or weight relieved guitars but at least they have the decency to include an "LW" designation (in many cases) at the end of the model number so that you know you are getting a Light Weight, solid body guitar. Overall, a guitar buyer these days must still exert deliberate effort in order to determine if the guitar they've got their eye on has been weight relieved or not.

Knock On Wood: A chambered Les Paul style guitar feels like a toy. If you try knocking on the body of the guitar, you can actually hear a hollow sound under your knuckles. That makes the guitar have a very "cheap" feel and having a guitar that feels good is important.

Stability: When I am playing an electric guitar, I want the guitar to have enough stability to pretty much stay where I left it when I let go of the neck. A heavier Les Paul will stay put a lot better than a light one. I've played some extremely light weight guitars and found that I had to remain very still while playing so that I would be able to let go of the neck and easily find the neck again when I move my hand to a new fret position. I don't want to try sanding the gloss off of the back of the neck of the guitar like Zakk Wylde does to avoid having my hand stick to it, and so I usually play with a looser grip that allows a lot of air between my hand and the back of the neck.

Why is chambering bad? (See photo at bottom of page too.)

- You don't get the same tone as you would from a traditional Les Paul style guitar. Chambering drastically affects the tone of the guitar. (Whether for better or worse is determined by your own personal opinion.)

- Reduced sustain.

- Less definition while playing with overdrive. (Distortion)

- Harder to control.

- Feels cheap.

- Reduced brand integrity when manufacturers do not clearly identify "solid body" electric guitar models as being chambered or weight relieved.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Since the time of the big change where Gibson began chambering all of the regular production line solid body guitars, it appears that a lot of complaints have since been tendered to where now, Gibson is offering a greater number traditional Les Paul guitars that are not weight relieved.
As of 2008, Gibson has also made some other changes to the "Les Paul Standard" that I am not real crazy about such as the Asymmetrical Neck Profile instead of the 50's neck profile which requires a larger truss rod, and a new enlarged neck tenon to keep it together.

One of the great qualities of the Heritage Guitar Company is that they continue to make Les Paul style guitars the way they should be made. They also do a lot better in the small details, unlike Gibson. My Heritage guitars have real mother of pearl inlays and a hand crafted wood finger rests (pick guards) while the Gibson Les Pauls I've owned, all had mother of plastic inlay and stamped plastic pick guards.