I have one of each. One is not better than the other. Just different. There's no mistaking that Les Paul overdriven tone.

actually a tele or jazz master is what i bet behind

aside from that i am into a les paul over a strat i just like it better

i heavily favor the les paul. it feels so much better in my hands and is far more comfortable to play. and the gibson sound is the best ever, in my opinion.

that being said, the "best" one to choose is going to depend completely on the person playing it.

think of this: both of these guitars are popular among professionals who can afford to play anything they want, and many of them use both, depending on the song, or even what mood they are in at the time.

The eternal question...

How many times has this been asked here? About a million at least.

Each guitar is great. Neither has anything over the other. Neither is restricted to a specific genre set. They both do blues, rock, grunge, metal, punk, pop, it doesn't matter just pick one and play.

The biggest difference I know of is that damned 60 cycle hum that's inherent with the single coils on the Strat, but completely absent on the LP with humbuckers.

Aside from that they do sound a little different, play a little different and feel a little different. The same, however, can be said for any two guitar brands out there.

If you want an LP, then go play them all and find the one that speaks to you. It never hurts to have more than one guitar. I have 15 or so. They all serve a purpose.

Well I own 3 (as you will see)....my strat, rickenbacker 330 and Burns Brian May signature.

Yeh the hum on the strat's pickups is def there and can be annoying at times...but is part of having one.

My girlfriend is amazed I can tell a Les Paul off a record...(mind you only holds good for unknown records...everyone knows what Slash plays in the main hahah).

I just wanna keep adding to my wall of guitars!

Then an LP is a good addition if you don't have one!

Chuck them both and get a Collings I 35 (after you refinance the house in order to pay for it).

They are two different tools for two different sounds. Generally speaking, the Les Paul has that "Fat" sound. The Strat has that "thin" sound. The strat is lighter, but has that 60 cycle hum, unless you change the pickups. There are also strats with humbuckers but, for now, I'm going under the assumption that your speaking about a standard strat. The Les Paul is heavier in weight, but it offers a thicker, heavier sound that you generally don't get from a strat with no hum also. Neither is better than the other. They're just different, and with so many after market parts, pickups, tuners, trems, you can wind up with a totally different animal from what you started out with right off the shelf. Basically, it's about you and what you want. I like strats personally, but only if I can get rid of the hum. For this I use DiMarzio Area 58's and 61's. They have a beautiful clean sound and no hum.

3 Guitars and no acoustics Hmmm

I own a strat and a tele and they are both really nice.

if i ever HAD to choose, itd be the Strat hands down.

To me, the Strat is a more versatile guitar than the Les Paul

Not to mention that many Strats (to me) are more comfortable to play than a Les Paul. Everything from the size of the neck to how slender the body is, makes it easier to play for long periods of time.

Both guitars are vital to Rock History, but as far as how guitars sound and feel today, the Strat is a guitar that keeps on delivering without severe changes to the design.

But I will say that the Les Paul is a better looking instrument

LP because I like the way it looks, sounds, plays, etc...*yawn*

Basically- Strat means bluesy and Les Paul noisy. Les Paul has that great Classic rock sound.But Strat is more universal somehow.

Oh I have an accoustic but not the wall space and tis an electric guitar post