Can you please elaborate as to why you think an Ibanez RG is better than a Gibson? Or why I don't need "quotes" around the pro?
Personally, I beg to differ....Compared to my Les Paul, that Ibanez sounded "muddy", had very little sustain, & just kinda sounded "dead" & "lifeless". I liked the wide, skinny neck at the time that I bought it, but nowadays I prefer something a little more chunkier. And, I loved doing divebombs with the Floyd licensed Edge trem. My Les Paul Classic, on the other hand, is "warm", "resonant", has nice sustain, & a nice feeling neck. & the flamed cherrytop just looks darn purdy too! The only drawback to it is those ceramic magnet 500T & 496R pickups, but that will change, because I just bought a set of Seymour Duncan '59s with my economic stimulus money...I anticipate it to sound nice and "warm & creamy" after I drop those pups in there. And believe it or not, thats the first time I ever bought replacement pickups for any of my guitars
Now, it's possible that maybe the Ibanez that I had was a "dog". And it's possible that your experience with Gibsons may have been "dogs" as well. It happens. Thats why I don't buy guitars w/o playing them first. And that Ibanez served its purpose & was okay for the type of stuff I was doing @ the time. But over the years my ears have become more discerning than they were 18 years ago. That kinda reminds me of when I was kid, my parents would take us kids out to eat at a nice steak restaurant, & we kids would be whining about it because we would've rather had McDonald's. To me, that Ibanez was a "hamburger", & the Les Paul is a "steak" (maybe even a ribeye or a KC strip...)