The Last Bass Outpost
Gear Discussion Forums => Gibson Basses => Topic started by: Dave W on June 17, 2015, 07:21:46 PM
-
Apparently not (http://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2015/06/16/gibson-guitars-40-million-11-year-tech-gamble/)
Sales have been disastrous but he seems determined to ignore reality.
-
Unbelievable. Why does Gibson think people would care about crap like this?
-
Listening to the voices in his head, it seems.
Also the article pee'd me off a little: "Getting the tuning correct every time you pick up a guitar is a serious barrier to entry for those just getting started"
In the wider context of guitar playing (and without wishing to seem overly élitist) is chopping people off at the door who can't even be bothered to learn how to tune a guitar properly such a bad thing?
-
"In MY day..." :P
Tuning a guitar by ear is one of the first things a player should learn. If you can't identify pitches, you're f*cked. This and learning songs by ear - no tab, no YouTube "how to" vids. (That stuff is fine if you get stuck on something...) Sorry, rant over!
-
"In MY day..." :P
Tuning a guitar by ear is one of the first things a player should learn. If you can't identify pitches, you're f*cked. This and learning songs by ear - no tab, no YouTube "how to" vids. (That stuff is fine if you get stuck on something...) Sorry, rant over!
I agree 100%.
-
I'm sure there is a market for self-tuning guitars just as there was a market for automatic cars as opposed to driving a stick. The lingering question is though whether it is Gibson's market. I have a hunch that a company like Ibanez might have more success with this type of thing. Or Epiphone. Or even a new brand within the Gibson family.
With Gibson it's a bit like Rolls Royce advocating lower fuel consumption on a new model - nobody who buys a Rolly Royce gives a toss about its fuel consumption. Alcohol-free Jack Daniels wouldn't be such a smash either. :-X
-
I think the idea is innovative, sure...not sure that the $2500-4000 Gibson guitar buying demographic should be forced to have it though if they are looking to purchase.
EDIT: The more I see of it, the more I like it. I wouldn't hate it, couple of strums when you sit down and you're off!
They could have simply put it on a series of guitars rather than everything. Nothing to get in a knot over though.
-
I think they burned so much money on it, now they're trying to create a market for it by putting it on every guitar. Seems backward to me.
-
Listening to the voices in his head, it seems.
Also the article pee'd me off a little: "Getting the tuning correct every time you pick up a guitar is a serious barrier to entry for those just getting started"
In the wider context of guitar playing (and without wishing to seem overly élitist) is chopping people off at the door who can't even be bothered to learn how to tune a guitar properly such a bad thing?
Exactly.
And how many of those just getting started will be buying a Gibson for their first guitar anyway?
I think the idea is innovative, sure...not sure that the $2500-4000 Gibson guitar buying demographic should be forced to have it though if they are looking to purchase.
EDIT: The more I see of it, the more I like it. I wouldn't hate it, couple of strums when you sit down and you're off!
They could have simply put it on a series of guitars rather than everything. Nothing to get in a knot over though.
You can't tune the GForce on the fly. You have to strum first. That's one of the complaints about it. More important, from what I've read, it's not all that accurate. The Axcent tuning system (formerly called Transperformance) can tune on the fly. It costs upward of $3K installed but it works and you can still turn your tuners manually. The GForce isn't innovative either. The Axcent has been on the open market for ten years and was in prototype years before that.
Gibson is not only forcing it on buyers, they void your warranty if you replace it with conventional tuners. Still, a number of dealers are offering to install conventional tuners on your new Les Paul at no additional cost. The few people who like it will buy it aftermarket. But all you have to do is hang out at Gibson-oriented guitar forums (like MLP) to see that it's been rejected outright by most prospective buyers. That's one big reason 2015 sales are in the toilet, although not the only reason.
At any rate, when Gibson eventually backs off, you can bet that Henry won't take personal responsibility for it.
-
If there was a bass with automatic tuners, that wouldn't keep from buying it (or using it, if there is no tuner around). I'd look at it from the entertainment/curiosity aspect. Those automatic tuners couldn't really be any more useless than the expansion and compression units on the RD Artist after all!
-
Yeah, it's so hard to find a tuner when you need one. If only there were tons of free smartphone tuner apps and $10 clip-on headstock tuners. ;)
-
I hesitate to post anything related to the Gibson raid, let's not get that discussion started again, but take a look at Henry in this video. His eyes pop out and roll around every direction, inappropriate smiling, the creepy John Waters mustache.... very odd! No wonder things are strange at Gibson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDkDyC2ybuY
-
Creepy indeed!
-
He could be on that Ancient Aliens show. :o
-
I hesitate to post anything related to the Gibson raid, let's not get that discussion started again, but take a look at Henry in this video. His eyes pop out and roll around every direction, inappropriate smiling, the creepy John Waters mustache.... very odd! No wonder things are strange at Gibson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDkDyC2ybuY
It's like bad overacting - brilliant in a way.
-
If there was a bass with automatic tuners, that wouldn't keep from buying it (or using it, if there is no tuner around). I'd look at it from the entertainment/curiosity aspect. Those automatic tuners couldn't really be any more useless than the expansion and compression units on the RD Artist after all!
The RD fx are far from useless. At least they contribute to tone.... the bright mode I could live without, but other players seem to really like it.
I haven't seen these tuners in actions, but considering the cost, and purported inability to tune manually, they do seem limiting without providing significant benefit.
-
Come on, Jake, that compression/expansion mode deadens the sound of an RD beyond belief when switched on! Makes it sound like a 100 Dollar bass with dead strings in a too bright setting. And tone development on an RD is already a bit sluggish as is - even without compression/expansion. I can't use that sound for anything.
-
He REALLY needs a PR director and coaching on eye movement while on camera.
He doesn't even know whether he should look at the camera or the person throwing him the questions.....or the back wall of the room.
I agree, the sum effect is creepy. He also talks at the same pace as Vincent Price in a menacing scene.
-
He REALLY needs a PR director and coaching on eye movement while on camera.
He doesn't even know whether he should look at the camera or the person throwing him the questions.....or the back wall of the room.
I agree, the sum effect is creepy. He also talks at the same pace as Vincent Price in a menacing scene.
I could definitely imagine him in a movie with Vincent Price or in an Alfred Hitchcock movie. He has both the look and the mannerisms.
-
Well we disagree on that, Uwe. I've had $100 basses. None of them sounded like my RD.
-
He could be on that Ancient Aliens show. :o
LMAO!
-
That's actually the first I've ever seen Henry J, yep, he's creepy! Bad interview too, but hey, there's only room for one God of Thunder59 :)
-
I think I must be the only person who lusts after the autotuning guitars, but only because I have to switch between tunings on the guitars the kids use as one group leaves and the other files in
but the thought of letting t them near a £1000 guitar puckers my sphincters so its a moot point even if I had the budget
-
Well we disagree on that, Uwe. I've had $100 basses. None of them sounded like my RD.
I'm not complaining about the RD's regular sound though that is a little on the sterile side for me, certainly not the beast of sound the bass projects visually. But once you switch on compression/expansion, all responsiveness of the bass disappears. But then I'm no fan of compression wherever it comes from. Takes all the fun out of bass playing for me.
-
I had the same Vincent Price association, but then decided aginst mentioning him out of respect for his legacy! Sure he overacted, but not as bad as Henry J.!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVHUyDxmi_Q
Henry would have been Roger Corman's dream cast.
-
Responsiveness = transient accuracy + dynamic range and a compressor, by definition, limits dynamic range. It is useful in that capacity, if you are into that sort of thing - you have every right not to be (I certainly don't want it all the time). The expansion on the bridge pup is genius IMHO even if, again, not something I want all the time (try it playing a chordy riff thru a OD/Distortion pedal, depending on the effect, as in how much it itself compresses, dialing in a bit of compressed neck into the mix for body/sustain can be nice). I suppose this may have been developed more with rhythm guitards in mind (we know that with Gibson, and most instrument makers, 6 bangers come first), but it works for me, and most other more shreddy bassists who tend to use these things as their main players. I know you complain about the sluggishness of the signal with the RD (e.g. poor transient response), but it's never been particularly so to me, though I tend to use it on things with longer notes vs fast runs so maybe, and I just don't care/notice it much.
To me, the hallmark of a cheap bass is clank, by which I mean being lean on the lower registers whether or not accompanied by excessive amounts of treble or mids. The RD is not lean in the lower register and not particularly middish.
On the other hand, the most sluggish (unresponsive) instrument ever, was one of the most expensive one of it's time (the Roland guitar synth (used for bass by the infamous Tony James while a member of Sigue Sigue Sputnik; I remember an interview where he said he had to learn to play a full 16th ahead; not sure if he was exaggerating, but it seems like it - anyway, that explains the lack of complexity in theitr basslines to a great degree).
and you editted and confirmmed my point:
But then I'm no fan of compression wherever it comes from. Takes all the fun out of bass playing for me.
Which is fair enough, but even you must acknowledge that many bass players love compression (some even too much). Recording engineers love to compress bass too; you'd be hard pressed to name a major label release with no bass compression from the last, say, 10 years.
-
I had the same Vincent Price association, but then decided aginst mentioning him out of respect for his legacy! Sure he overacted, but not as bad as Henry J.!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVHUyDxmi_Q
Henry would have been Roger Corman's dream cast.
Before girls and music, Vincent Price was my favorite actor. If you're in the sixth grade and Edgar Allan Poe is your favorite author, that's not surprising. I certainly got my money's worth from those movies.
-
I know, I always have to talk engineers out of using compression on my signal. I'm volume-wise a pretty consistent player, but when I play something consciously louder, I want it to be heard louder too. Compression emasculates me, it contradicts my whole "dive bombing/bird of prey"-approach in my bass playing which aims at playing something once in a while that startles people (and my co-musicians!) "Now what the heck did he do there?!" I'm more like a lead guitarist in that way which is why I've started to put in my classifieds looking for a band "lead bassist" a long time ago. Except that people always overread it or think it's a joke or a typo. It is not, it's a religion.
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RZQmAzAwTrQ/hqdefault.jpg)
-
Before girls and music, Vincent Price was my favorite actor. If you're in the sixth grade and Edgar Allan Poe is your favorite author, that's not surprising. I certainly got my money's worth from those movies.
I enjoyed him a lot, but even as a kid I thought "this guy is way too operatic, it's like he's mocking the genre". Just like Bela Lugosi (Max Schreck as Nosferatu was of course operatic too, but as it was a silent movie he had to be and he was more unsettling than Lugosi ever was). Of the horror flic actors, Boris Karloff was my favorite for the melancholy in his subdued playing. "The Mummy" is grand in that way.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/50/149556613_eb4e637a08_b.jpg)
His depiction of the Frankenstein's monster (basically played as if the monster was a mentally challenged, but not evil human) is the only one that goes to the heart - to this day.
Christopher Lee looked great as Dracula, but those early Hammer Films gave his figure no depth, he was like a horror prop in those movies - conveniently pulled out when necessary.
Oh, and I liked Edgar Alan Poe too!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5NN8fK1tXo
[/quote]
-
This is who I though of when i saw the video. Henry would be a natural for a remake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ6eH8vcy9c
-
You are an excruciatingly mean person, Dave.
-
I liked Boris Karloff almost as much. Still, I think Vincent Price was my favorite horror actor. As for Poe, I've heard that he isn't rated as high anymore. That's no surprise. I rarely agree with critics on much of anything anyway.
Edit:
As far as I know, Poe is still very much respected in countries such as France. But I have heard his poetry isn't considered what it once was in the U.S. I think this is because at some point people who don't know how to rhyme poems decided free verse should be the rage.
-
Of the horror flic actors, Boris Karloff was my favorite for the melancholy in his subdued playing. "The Mummy" is grand in that way.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/50/149556613_eb4e637a08_b.jpg)
His depiction of the Frankenstein's monster (basically played as if the monster was a mentally challenged, but not evil human) is the only one that goes to the heart - to this day.
Uwe, I knew I liked you!
Yes, Karloff was the absolute best. His Mummy is one of the few horror films from that era that still has the ability to scare kids. His portrayal was wonderful.
And I have always regarded his Frankenstein monster as you describe him. No other actor has ever managed to actually make you feel pity and empathy for the monster. It is a masterful piece of work.
-
I saw The Mummy like when I was 9 years old, we had a series called "Das Gruselkabinett" which featured all these great American horror classics, Frankenstein, Freaks (which I found really unsettling!) and I could watch it because my parents were so agnostic, they could not fathom how anyone could be scared by something supernatural, not even their kid! I devoured it all. With The Mummy, I was fascinated by Karloff's demeanor and the intensity of his love surviving all these milleniums. I saw the film more as a love than a horror story, but a good one. Ever the romantic, even as a 9-year-old. 8)
Did anybody post Deep Purple's Vincent Price? :mrgreen: Here's the official vid, they actually dug out an actor who looked a bit like a young Vincent Price and shared his before camera demeanor. Contains pole dancing with nuns!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEWYRRaxFhU
-
I saw The Mummy like when I was 9 years old, we had a series called "Das Gruselkabinett" which featured all these great American horror classics, Frankenstein, Freaks (which I found really unsettling!) and I could watch it because my parents were so agnostic, they could not fathom how anyone could be scared by something supernatural, not even their kid! I devoured it all. With The Mummy, I was fascinated by Karloff's demeanor and the intensity of his love surviving all these milleniums. I saw the film more as a love than a horror story, but a good one. Ever the romantic, even as a 9-year-old. 8)
Did anybody post Deep Purple's Vincent Price? :mrgreen: Here's the official vid, they actually dug out an actor who looked a bit like a young Vincent Price and shared his before camera demeanor. Contains pole dancing with nuns!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEWYRRaxFhU
I posted another video of Deep Purple's Vincent Price. It may not play in Europe. But I'm going to delete it now. This one is better.
-
Forgot about that DP vid. Fun stuff, and a pole dancing nun! What's not to like?
-
Never saw that video before - it's a hoot!
The scene my girls still remember from The Mummy is the trailing bandages going slowly out the door in the early scene right after the mummy re-animates. You haven't seen it yet, but the bandages moving slowly through the doorway was a masterful tease.
-
Nothing is going to beat that Deep Purple video. But here is ZZ Top doing "Vincent Price Blues" anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4zHSslWXYQ
-
:-\ Wish I had the body to wear the pole dancing nun outfit.
-
I know we hardly ever discuss Deep Purple here, but back to Henry for a minute.
Yesterday Gawker published a negative article (http://gawker.com/gibson-guitar-is-a-remarkably-unpopular-company-1713072808) about Gibson. Mostly a hatchet job, IMHO -- typical of Gawker, no attempt to present a balanced story. But this tale stood out:
One woman who had traveled from the UK in order to interview for a job at Gibson earlier this year sent us a brief excerpt about the Gibson hiring process, complete with a cameo by the CEO himself:
I just got a glimpse [of] what felt like the world’s most baffling hiring process. ‘The psychometric test takes approximately three hours to complete. If you have any questions in this process or problems with the testing, please let me know,’ said the email when it plopped into my inbox yesterday. I promptly responded: ‘I don’t really have three hours spare to take tests before tomorrow. Also, please can I have a job description because you haven’t actually sent me anything about the role, and I’d really rather know exactly what you expect before I succumb to being tested for THREE WHOLE HOURS.’ Or something to that effect. It wasn’t quite as stroppy. But seriously, I had other admin to attend to, like answering my Tinder messages.
Anyway, what happened was, HR invited me to meet with three different people in the company in one day (all of whom would explain more), and in the time between these meetings she suggested I take these tests at their headquarters. I hadn’t really planned to spend the majority of a day in a corporate cellblock ...
I’ll admit, I forgot about the test when the CEO stepped into the gigantic conference room, if only because he was even more baffling. It was all I could do to sustain eye contact. The silver-haired, seventy-ish-year-old man looked as though he was having some sort of epileptic fit in front of me as he blathered on and on and on about his history in and before he started with the company. His eyes were rolling around the room, landing everywhere but on me. I wasn’t entirely sure he was sober.
‘So, do you have a social media strategy already?’ I asked him.
‘Oh yes,’ he said, sitting back and smiling knowingly.
‘I’d like to know what it is.’
‘I bet you would,’ he smirked.
‘Well, it would help,’ I replied, trying to meet his eyes, and failing.
‘I’m sure it would,’ he answered.
‘Well... what do you want to be, as a brand, that you think you’re not already?’
‘Even more awesome. We’re already awesome. We just want to be more awesome.’
‘Right.’
As he spoke, the words I read on Glassdoor.com rushed back to me: ‘Run, don’t walk away from even considering working here. The CEO is HORRIBLE - mean, nasty, uber-controlling. If anyone in the company dares to have a different idea than his, you can pretty much guarantee that they will be fired - on the spot.’
So Henry's rolling eyeballs in that video weren't just nervousness.
-
That was interesting and maybe even accurate. But there is no way to know with Gawker. Gawker has a habit of targeting certain people & just never knowing when to stop. I'm pretty sure I know why they're targeting Gibson, although I can't be sure. Every time there is an article on Gibson, however, many of the comments are much the same. People informing the world they need to be playing Teles & Strats, etc. Nevertheless, I'm not questioning that account of the hiring practices. That does have a ring of authenticity to it. I'm just saying that when I read Gawker I do so cautiously. This especially applies to anything they say about politics or religion. There is not even an iota of objectivity present. Furthermore, especially when those topics are brought up, at least half the comments at the bottom come from people who appear to be totally deranged.
-
"I know we hardly ever discuss Deep Purple here ..."
:rimshot:
I can imagine a job interview with Henry J to be slightly unsettling - he is weird though that doesn't automatically make him a nasty person or Gibson a crap place to work. As for the hiring process, the woman seems a little stuck up to me. She should have welcomed the fact that Gibson was taking the time and that she had the chance to interview with several people there. And Henry J isn't the first ill-preoared CEO to stumble into an interview with a job applicant, that seems more de rigeur to me. In any case, if she wasn't willing to spend a day at Gibson - and I assume that she wasn't applying to be the janitor -, then maybe she would have been the wrong choice for the company anyway.
When a young attorney applies with us, we generally seen him/her on two or three separate days, everytime for a couple of hours and he/she speaks to various people (we don't do any testing, people applying with us have had tests galore in their life) and get shown around. Unless there are specific reasons (we can hire on the spot too if the circumstances demand it), we expect any candidate to be prepared to devote that much time (and candidates expect it from us vice versa).
And the way she dissects Gibson and Henry J publicly in the aftermath is highly unprofessional. Silly girl.
As for Henry J's unruly eyes, there might be a medical condition there, which would not be his fault: nystagmus. I assume that if anything could be done about it, his PR advisors would have trained it away some time ago already.
-
That's what "kids" do these days, post every damn thing that happens regardless of possible consequences.
But she has some points. The day before an interview is not the time to spring a three-hour test. We do coding tests for engineer candidates, but as a screening step before we schedule interviews, we give them plenty of time to make time to do the tests, and we have alternative options for people who can't or won't do the test. What's described in this - they hadn't even provided a job description! - is a sign of a chaotic environment and a company that will think nothing of making unreasonable demands once you have the job.
-
"I know we hardly ever discuss Deep Purple here ..."
:rimshot:
I can imagine a job interview with Henry J to be slightly unsettling - he is weird though that doesn't automatically make him a nasty person or Gibson a crap place to work. As for the hiring process, the woman seems a little stuck up to me. She should have welcomed the fact that Gibson was taking the time and that she had the chance to interview with several people there. And Henry J isn't the first ill-preoared CEO to stumble into an interview with a job applicant, that seems more de rigeur to me. In any case, if she wasn't willing to spend a day at Gibson - and I assume that she wasn't applying to be the janitor -, then maybe she would have been the wrong choice for the company anyway.
When a young attorney applies with us, we generally seen him/her on two or three separate days, everytime for a couple of hours and he/she speaks to various people (we don't do any testing, people applying with us have had tests galore in their life) and get shown around. Unless there are specific reasons (we can hire on the spot too if the circumstances demand it), we expect any candidate to be prepared to devote that much time (and candidates expect it from us vice versa).
And the way she dissects Gibson and Henry J publicly in the aftermath is highly unprofessional. Silly girl.
As for Henry J's unruly eyes, there might be a medical condition there, which would not be his fault: nystagmus. I assume that if anything could be done about it, his PR advisors would have trained it away some time ago already.
I worked with somebody who had nystagmus. The person can appear like they are acting, for lack of a better word, "shifty". Eye contact is difficult...heck, when I would make eye contact..I wondered if he thought I was staring at his condition.
-
That's what "kids" do these days, post every damn thing that happens regardless of possible consequences.
But she has some points. The day before an interview is not the time to spring a three-hour test. We do coding tests for engineer candidates, but as a screening step before we schedule interviews, we give them plenty of time to make time to do the tests, and we have alternative options for people who can't or won't do the test. What's described in this - they hadn't even provided a job description! - is a sign of a chaotic environment and a company that will think nothing of making unreasonable demands once you have the job.
I'm afraid this problem of unreasonable demands being made on employees is all too common in society now. You have something like the Black Death in which much of the population is wiped out, then suddenly workers are treated more fairly for reasons which are obvious.
-
She had to take time to respond to Tinder posts?
Gibson is much better off without her. She has no sense of priorities or business.
Granted, the day before is too late to spring a 3-hour test on someone, but if you're not willing to stretch yourself a bit to get a job, I don't want you working for me.
-
Maybe he has nystagmus, maybe he's just shifty. Either way, it's unsettling.
It's Gawker. Some of it is probably just anonymous ranting they picked up off the web. But this woman apparently contacted them, and her description has a ring of truth. She was flown in from the UK, so it wasn't a low level job, and from the content of her questions, it sure seems apparent to me that that the questions she asked pertained to the position.
Too much smoke there to ignore or write off.
-
She had to take time to respond to Tinder posts?
Given the publication context (it's Gawker), how do you not get that that was facetious.
-
Another Gawker article. Guitar Center doesn't want employees to be sharing the negative article about Gibson.
http://gawker.com/guitar-center-employees-may-not-share-very-negative-g-1713949083
-
That GC email is perfectly ok - of course you should not participate in one of your important business partners having bad media. Never bite the hand that feeds. Gibson's reputation is currently such that it doesn't need GC employees to chip in as well to create greater credibility.
-
I also see nothing wrong with GC doing this. But it's likely to fall under the category of the Streisand Effect that Dave once talked about.
-
Speaking of GC, I had some time to kill in the local Guitar Satan where I worked over a decade ago, and they had not one, but two actual new Gibson basses, a 2015 T-Bird and an EB-0. I think that EB- 0 has been there five years, maybe longer and I doubt it will ever sell, even at the $1499 price because there's also a vintage slothead EB-4L for $1199 that I played when it belonged to another music store that scratches that itch MUCH better. The '15 Thunderbird? Henry ought to be ashamed to put out such a POS with the Gibson name on it!
The EB pickups are awesome, giving a great woody tone that gives the passive T-Bird tone a different dimension and much more like the Nordstrands equipping the adjacent high end Ibanez basses (I love those, but they feel like toys in my hands) than the MM soapbars they resemble, and the bridge were great, but the bass itself, it was terrible. The body wings were visibly differing thicknesses and the finish was flaking off the neck/wing joint on both sides of both parts as well as the outer wing edges, exposing the wood. The oversized headstock with the ultra-skinny body made for terrible neckdive even by Thunderbird standards, and the tuners were crooked. I guess the one positive for others, but not me, would be that holding the neck up all night wouldn't be a problem because whatever kind of "mahogany" the bass was made of, its overall weight was way south of ten lbs, and felt even lighter than the toy-like Ibanez instruments. T-Bird are normally heavy because of their size, but this one felt like it was in the 6-7 lb range, no joke.
For that bass, Gibson's price of $2349 is ludicrous. After tax, Henry expects to have someone pay over $2500 for a bass that looks like the Korean off brand reject junk of the late 80's. Even the shittiest low end $200 import had better fit and finish. Maybe Henry is trying to make some kind of point about lazy labor producing sub-par instruments because that bass was clearly not built for a player with any kind of attention to detail or appreciation for sealed wood. (The older EB-0 had none of those issues; it just sounds like a modern EB-0, blah.) Gibson can't blame it on climate or handling either. Nashville and Knoxville have essentially the same climate and I remember from my time working at that store that all Gibsons are drop-shipped from the factory, and any blow heavy enough to damage the finish to the degree this one has would have taken a corresponding chunk of wood with it, which was not the case. It still played great, but for that price, hell no would I buy one. Especially not when the Epiphone version is much cheaper and has the traditional T-Bird tone, something this one couldn't do.
Seriously, even though the EB pickups are great, a Thunderbird still ought to sound like a Thunderbird at least some. I know Uwe finds the new combination a refreshing update. but he also has an entire stable of T-Birds that SOUND like T-Birds. My suggestion would be to have a TB+ in the neck with the EB working its midrange magic in the bridge position, which I know is aesthetically mismatched, but I think a bridge EB could have a black plastic cover, or heaven forbid, chrome on both. If someone gave me that bass, I would hesitate just because I know a substantial investment is required just to make the instrument able to age without shedding its finish even worse and crooked tuners, while functional, are completely inexcusable on a modern instrument. Re-drilling mounting holes on a new bass is ridiculous.
The test amp was a vintage GK 800RB into a vintage EV-loaded Mesa 2x15, far and away the best amp in the place. I played several basses today, and my favorite was a black Epi Jack Casady, followed by a 5-string Peavey G-Bass that thought it was a Ken Smith. I would love to have the money to bring those home. I also tried a vintage Baldwin hollowbody with an Ampeg scroll-esque headstock. It was junk. There was also a 70's Guild JS II that was fun, but I don't care for medium scale. The pickups didn't impress me either. I was REALLY hoping to try one of the new fan-fret Ibanez basses since I'll probably never see a Dingwall in the wild. I played, but didn't plug in a new Fender Jazz V Deluxe; it had a wide, but comfortable neck.
I also appeared to be the only person in the bass room who could actually play and/or was not high on meth. No, I'm not kidding. There was some bald tweaker beating the shit out of every bass he held "slapping" it (thankfully he favored Schecters and Squiers tough/cheap enough to endure it) and his homeless-tramp looking buddy drinking vodka out of a Mountain Dew can kept commenting about how he wanted to have sex with a poor Epi Beatle bass. I know I was tired and irritable over heaving to come into work during the day for a benefits seminar that I can't afford even if wanted to, the only reason I was on that end of town during daylight, but those guys would have been kicked out, probably by me personally when I worked there. There was also some guy who didn't work there who kept coming in the room and then leaving every time I swapped instruments to watch me play but wouldn't talk to me; WTF? That store is just a corporate cesspool of suck now. Henry ought to visit. I think he'd like it.
-
if gibson folded there would be a lot of sad guitarists, not so many bassists.imo.
-
Uhm, you didn't like it then? :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
(http://www.slantmagazine.com/assets/film/psycho.jpg)
-
No chance of Gibson folding.
I understand at least one of the local GCs has been completely remodeled and looks nice.
-
There's a Facebook group dedicated to former employees of this particular store. We keep tabs on old friends and sometimes enemies too. It has been remodeled recently. All the huge standing displays bolted to the floor are gone now, probably because they made for too many blind spots for theft. . They were added long after I left anyway. The store looks very empty now
Surprisingly, the number of basses is probably the most the store has seen since its Musician's Friend (it was one of three stores GC converted) glory days, but most of them were cheapies that had been VERY abused, knobs and pots were missing and broken, massive finish scratches, basically pawn shop-condition, "new" instruments. The T-Bird was up higher than the others and looked like it hadn't been handled very much: no greasy fingerprints on the pickguard or tuners. It it hadn't been for the QC issues, I think I would have shared in Uwe's feelings about the 2015 changes, but seeing it built like import junk- nuh-uh. I would LOVE to hear the EB pickups in an actual EB; they sound great, just nothing like a Thunderbird, which is sort of the reason most folks would buy a Thunderbird.
-
Back to Henry's vanity project.
Gibson Says Self-Tuning Guitars Are Here To Stay, Even As Purists Fret (http://nashvillepublicradio.org/post/gibson-says-self-tuning-guitars-are-here-stay-even-purists-fret)
We'll see how long this lasts.
Gibson has already started to retreat on the guitar front. They're now offering a $699 Les Paul CM (http://www2.gibson.com/Products/Electric-Guitars/2015/USA/Les-Paul-CM-2015.aspx) with a standard nut, the former standard neck width, and the old familiar Les Paul script -- unfortunately the G Force is still standard, and it's really just a 2014 Les Paul Melody Maker with a bridge HB instead of two P90s, but it's a start in the wake of disastrous 2015 sales so far. And in light of the problems with the soft brass zero fret wear, in the past few days they have started offering some new prototype nut to buyers who complain.
-
This is just common sense. Not too many people are ever going to get excited about a self-tuning guitar. George Gruhn's comments were relevant, too. Nobody cares. It's a bad idea, IMO. I honestly wish Gibson would find a way to move beyond this.
-
They're just now offering another 2015 with the G Force but without all the other improvements, it's the Gibson Les Paul Traditional Classic ABR 2015. Henry seems to be determined to force the G Force on everyone hoping they'll still buy since the other crap has been ditched. It will probably improve sales some, since the G Force can be replaced with conventional tuners, but what kind of megalomaniac tries to force something that prospective buyers have overwhelmingly rejected? Talk about hubris!
(http://s10.postimg.org/z83nhfat5/Henry_Juszkiewicz_Gibson_Chairman_and_CEO.jpg)
-
Damn it Dave! That's pretty feckin' creepy!
-
Personally I'd have captioned it "[Herp a] Derp"
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKcAYMb5uk4
-
I came across this today. Im sure it was discussed here already but I found it particularly nuts that on Gibsons own website they state that Tom Peterson played a Thunderbird III. It was put up over a year ago and in that time no one thought to correct the error? its one thing for misinformation to be spread across forums and blogs..but your own website?! The whole site must be run by some group of marketing wunderkinds that sold the Gibson on the idea that they could increase their web/social media presence and Henry has double-downed on them just like he has robo-tuners.
http://www2.gibson.com/News-Lifestyle/Features/en-us/The-10-Coolest-Gibson-Thunderbird-Players.aspx
-
Well, they do have a shot of the TB "III" and, most importantly there's a nice shot of the Badbird bridge - Scott should link to it!
-
I came across this today. Im sure it was discussed here already but I found it particularly nuts that on Gibsons own website they state that Tom Peterson played a Thunderbird III. It was put up over a year ago and in that time no one thought to correct the error? its one thing for misinformation to be spread across forums and blogs..but your own website?! The whole site must be run by some group of marketing wunderkinds that sold the Gibson on the idea that they could increase their web/social media presence and Henry has double-downed on them just like he has robo-tuners.
http://www2.gibson.com/News-Lifestyle/Features/en-us/The-10-Coolest-Gibson-Thunderbird-Players.aspx
Which dumbshit wrote this? Smells like another Anne Erickson article to me. Includes bassists not primarily known for Thunderbirds while omitting their own endorser Nikki Sixx.
Then there's this gem:
Jackie Foxx: Yes, the Runaway’s bassist played a 1965 Gibson Thunderbird throughout the bands four-year history, from 1975 to 1979, after unsuccessfully auditioning for the guitar slot won by Lita Ford.
She left the band in '77, and her stage name was Fox, not Foxx.
-
Yes, excluding Nikki Sixx while trying to make us believe Krist Novoselic involvement in his RD sig was by pure inspiration of the Thunderbird design is beyond ridiculous.
• Krist Novoselic: The Gibson Ripper was Novoselic’s main bass through his years with Nirvana until he settled on the Thunderbird IV in the band’s last months. Novoselic was so enamored with the T-bird design that he celebrated the 20th anniversary of the release of Nirvana’s Nevermind by creating the Krist Novoselic Signature RD Bass with Gibson. The instrument follows the essential curves of the Thunderbird IV
-
Foxx...? Sixx...?
Double XX rated nonsense... :mrgreen:
-
this must be the worst list ever. gene simmons is alot of things but no one ever accused him of being cool. how about exclusive gibson users, that would be more to the point. i think mike watt comes closest to filling that slot. nirvana guy should be on the "people who have knocked themselves out with gibson basses"list. :o
-
Yeah, it's so hard to find a tuner when you need one. If only there were tons of free smartphone tuner apps and $10 clip-on headstock tuners. ;)
There may still be a day when cheap tuners become available. We've just got to hold on and hope for the best. :-\
-
Just for laughs, this was created by a guy at The Gear Page.
The LickR software is interesting. :mrgreen:
(http://i.imgur.com/Vp1tsFz.jpg)
And discussed by him as if it were real.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0UvwEeyAV4
-
The idea of a standard pickup "dock" for a swappable pickup isn't all that far fetched...the way tech goes these days
-
elektra guitars had swapable pickups back in the 70's. leslie west was an endorser.
-
elektra guitars had swapable pickups back in the 70's.
Dan Armstrong's also.
-
Yes, but none of those had 25 pins to activate the LickR and CybroKnobs. :mrgreen:
-
Truth is, the auto tune thing is the classic engineering driving marketing rather than the other way around. Simple as that and it fails much more than it succeeds. Successful products are typically developed based on market demand. Simple.
-
Truth is, the auto tune thing is the classic engineering driving marketing rather than the other way around. Simple as that and it fails much more than it succeeds. Successful products are typically developed based on market demand. Simple.
They must have been taking lessons from BMW. "We removed the dipstick and you will now use the sensors to find your oil level. You will enjoy it - that's an order."
-
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cartoonstock.com/history-extinct-caveman-neanderthal-invent-inventor-forn993_low.jpg)
Any bets that this will be de rigeur with guitars in, say, ten years time? Man's inherent laziness is the driver of all invention.
-
I don't see it ever becoming common. Most of us want things the way they were at the dawn of the solid body electric era, and that attitude hasn't changed since the 70s.
-
I remember people saying in the 70ies that tuning gadgets like the electrical Korg tuner were wholly unnecessary, for talentless musicians only and bad for your pitch ear.
How many members here do without an electrical tuner today?
With the advances in microsizing, there will be electrical tuners/machine heads in a few years that won't look too different from old style ones. You tell me that people will then not accept them!
I would have no issues with a bass that features a voice control that would trigger the machine heads at the command "tune up!" :) Execution of a "change strings"-command will however still take some developmental time I guess ...
(http://clevelandclassical.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Fantasia.jpg)
-
I agree that people will eventually accept them, but only if bypassable. Tuners for example don't prevent you from detuning.
-
The automatic tuners would be accepted today as long as they are installed on special series of guitars. Like the Robot guitar which of course got ridiculed, but the problem now is you can not buy a standard LP without them. They would probably be more than well accepted on entry level models (both by experienced musicians and beginners). While we're speaking of the 70's I'd say the automatic tuners will most likely catch on better than the sliding pickup.
-
Fretless is the way to go then... half tone, semi tone, hittin' the note... don't need to go near the tuners... just use the ears...
A "tuner" is de rigeur these days and that I can understand but auto-tuning for a bass...? Not been following this accurately... I know they've been pushing them for sixers but is there a bass loaded with these yet...???
You got one yet Uwe...? If it exists you'd probably "need" one... Maybe this is where you could make a stand and say Nien! Someone has to make a stand, don't they...? ;)
-
The only bass I own that could benefit from automatic tuning is my alu neck Kramer because as the neck warms up when being played, the bass goes a little flat (or was it sharp, I forget!) overall. Generally takes two to three songs, after that it stays in tune solidly.
-
Sharp... ally would expand when warmed...
-
I remember people saying in the 70ies that tuning gadgets like the electrical Korg tuner were wholly unnecessary, for talentless musicians only and bad for your pitch ear.
How many members here do without an electrical tuner today?
With the advances in microsizing, there will be electrical tuners/machine heads in a few years that won't look too different from old style ones. You tell me that people will then not accept them!
I would have no issues with a bass that features a voice control that would trigger the machine heads at the command "tune up!" :) Execution of a "change strings"-command will however still take some developmental time I guess ...
...
Give me back my tuning fork and pitch pipe! >:( ;)
No, you can't compare it to electronic tuners, they aren't made a part of the instrument and they don't replace the manual tuning heads. And I never heard anyone call electronic tuners unnecessary back then. Every player I knew loved them.
Today you have remarkably accurate and cheap digital tuners, including clip-ons. You don't have to buy one for every instrument, either. Now TC-Helicon has introduced a $50 clip-on polyphonic tuner (http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/PolyTuneClip) that's accurate to +/- 0.02 cents. If that performance gets surpassed someday, you can just buy a new one, you won't be faced with replacing all your tuning heads due to outdated or non-working electronics.
-
They must have been taking lessons from BMW. "We removed the dipstick and you will now use the sensors to find your oil level. You will enjoy it - that's an order."
It's been standard on every vehicle I've operated... usually red, and called the "oil warning light"... when it comes on, add oil... (yes, I know... philistine... :mrgreen:)
-
if you own a ford truck you will notice the 'warning lights' have a mind of their own.
-
if you own a ford truck you will notice the 'warning light' have a mind of their own.
Like in the movie 'Maximum overdrive'? :mrgreen:
-
It's been standard on every vehicle I've operated... usually red, and called the "oil warning light"... when it comes on, add oil... (yes, I know... philistine... :mrgreen:)
Aaaaaggghhh! :-\
-
I agree with Dave. We've always needed a pitch source to tune and I never rejected the electronic tuner as it just provided an automatic way to tune. But it's a choice to use one. No one made me throw away my pitch pipe. At home I use a piano, at practice a tuner. Putting it on all guitars and upcharging for it is just plain stupid IMHO.
-
People are just as picky about tuners as they are anything else. I think it makes more sense to let the user choose the one he/she favors. Building one in is one more thing to break, and one more thing to dislike if it's not your style.
-
I also believe something like this is very much an individual matter. Out of all the things I can think of that seem important, a self-tuning instrument seems to be toward the bottom of the list. But maybe this is because before the days of electronic tuners especially, I was kind of looked at as a human turning fork by others. Even people who might be better musicians would trust me on tuning, what was getting out of tune, etc. It's a pity my playing skills are probably not as great as my tuning skills. The bottom line, obviously, is that even a self-tuning bass would be of little interest to me. It might be nice, but basically, who cares? Whatever the mindset that Gibson has to place so much emphasis on self-tuning is something I definitely do not identify with.
-
If someone can't tune an instrument, their chances of being able to play it with any degree of success are highly in question.
-
If someone can't tune an instrument, their chances of being able to play it with any degree of success are highly in question.
Amen Al!
-
Anybody who has issues with pitch or timing is just wasting everybody's time.
-
If someone can't tune an instrument, their chances of being able to play it with any degree of success are highly in question.
I'd think that those robot tuners might make better sense in the Epi lineup - targeting kids short on cash and attention spans who just want to get up and running without being hassled with tuning. A springboard to help get kids transitioned from GuitarHero/RockSmith to their future Gibsons...
Probably would blow the Epi price point out of the water, though... so what do I know.
-
Another problem with these is that some guitarists will tune one string a few cents sharp or flat for chording in a particular key. Can't do that with these.
-
Maybe next years exciting innovation will be robot frets.
-
Self-playing guitars could be next. A person could become a rock star with one of those things.
-
Maybe they could replace Henry with an upgraded Asimo...
Might be a waste of AI though...
-
Also, if the intonation on the guitar is less than perfect, sometimes you have to tweak the tuning slightly to find the best compromise. Especially with fixed-bridge acoustic guitars, or quasi-adjustable bridges like on my Danelectro reissue. I really don't think a built-in tuner is going to do that better than I can.
As one example, I often tune the low E a tiny bit flat since it tends to suffer a bit more from going sharp when played hard.
Bass is relatively easy. Much less finicky than six short skinny strings....
-
A good automatic tuning system could handle all those tuning nuances and even detect when something needs to be tuned a little flat or sharp. You guys argue a bit like people used to argue against safety belts: "And what if the car catches fire?"
You have to yet convince me, my luddite friends, that this will not be a lot more commonplace in the future. A future tuning system would even be able to detect from the chord fretted what tuning is the optimal well-tempered one and make micro-adjustments on the spot. You just wait! :mrgreen:
-
Here we go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvsVfKTpkn4
-
Ho hum, it still should be consumer choice. I'd love to see how popular self-tuning violins, cellos and violas would be in the future. Those crazy classical musicians, luddites in the first degree, I'm sure!
-
Seriously, though, I hope Gibson finds a way to get through what is probably a big mistake. I used to have a Telecaster (guitar) which got stolen at a battle of the bands. I also used to have a 1959 Gibson Les Paul Jr. which had belonged to my father. I was well acquainted with both. Although there was nothing wrong with the Tele, the Gibson was far superior. In my opinion, there is no better sounding guitar than a Gibson.
-
A good automatic tuning system could handle all those tuning nuances and even detect when something needs to be tuned a little flat or sharp. You guys argue a bit like people used to argue against safety belts: "And what if the car catches fire?"
You have to yet convince me, my luddite friends, that this will not be a lot more commonplace in the future. A future tuning system would even be able to detect from the chord fretted what tuning is the optimal well-tempered one and make micro-adjustments on the spot. You just wait! :mrgreen:
Now you're just being contrary for its own sake.
It would be possible right now to create a programmable tuner that would make adjustments that slinkp and I mentioned above. That would be great, wouldn't it? While you're in the middle of a gig up there on a dimly lit stage, you could start scrolling through multiple menus to get to the patch you programmed, while your audience waits. That would surely be better than having to spend a second or two to twist a tuning key a tiny fraction of an inch! :rolleyes:
And if we ever get to the point that a player needs a tuning system to automatically decide the optimal temperament for him -- instead of deciding for himself when and where he needs to change -- then he should consider giving up playing.
-
A good automatic tuning system could handle all those tuning nuances and even detect when something needs to be tuned a little flat or sharp.
Aah, that would be perfect. When the guitard is a lousy bender there's a quick cpu recognising it and correcting it without anyone noticing it.
-
Now you're just being contrary for its own sake.
It would be possible right now to create a programmable tuner that would make adjustments that slinkp and I mentioned above. That would be great, wouldn't it? While you're in the middle of a gig up there on a dimly lit stage, you could start scrolling through multiple menus to get to the patch you programmed, while your audience waits. That would surely be better than having to spend a second or two to twist a tuning key a tiny fraction of an inch! :rolleyes:
And if we ever get to the point that a player needs a tuning system to automatically decide the optimal temperament for him -- instead of deciding for himself when and where he needs to change -- then he should consider giving up playing.
A number should consider giving up playing even without problems like that. I don't know when it was that everybody and his mother decided to become a guitarist. Of course, for the ones who are good, that's fine. But an unfortunate number are not good, IMHO.
-
the beatles on the ed sullivan show started the guitar plague, imo.
-
How about Chuck... must have had some kind of influence...
-
the beatles on the ed sullivan show started the guitar plague, imo.
Agreed, if you're a red blooded American teen aged male and you see the Beatles on Ed Sullivan you can't help but notice thousands of delirious, ecstatic, shrieking girls. Pretty easy to connect the dots: Play guitar in band = GIRLS :)
Some of us stuck with it even after we realized the formula was flawed :sad:
-
i think berry's influence was minimal. kenny you are
probably to young i think but after that tv show everyone i knew wanted a guitar, me included. :o i might include the ventures, too. they were at peak of their career in the early to mid sixties and were quite popular, getting lots of airplay.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WW21rcHiVU0
and of course this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bKG0p6Tv9Q
-
Agreed, if you're a red blooded American teen aged male and you see the Beatles on Ed Sullivan you can't help but notice thousands of delirious, ecstatic, shrieking girls. Pretty easy to connect the dots: Play guitar in band = GIRLS :)
Some of us stuck with it even after we realized the formula was flawed :sad:
But when the Beatles came out with Sgt. Pepper, it was a whole new ball game. From that point on, I was only interested in bass. I waited till our bassist joined the military, then jumped at the chance to take his place.
-
... kenny you are probably to young ...
My Hero...! ;)
-
The Beatles gave a big boost but only for guys of a certain age range. It goes in cycles.
I'm older. When I started, all I wanted to do was to be able to play like Chuck Berry. That was hard to do on cello.
A little later on, the Ventures inspired some, then came the folk music boom, all before the Beatles hit. Each had their influence, and the same goes for artists since.
-
Now you're just being contrary for its own sake.
It would be possible right now to create a programmable tuner that would make adjustments that slinkp and I mentioned above. That would be great, wouldn't it? While you're in the middle of a gig up there on a dimly lit stage, you could start scrolling through multiple menus to get to the patch you programmed, while your audience waits. That would surely be better than ! :rolleyes:
And if we ever get to the point that a player needs a tuning system to automatically decide the optimal temperament for him -- instead of deciding for himself when and where he needs to change -- then he should consider giving up playing.
To follow your example for sake of argument, lieber Dave: I believe that the philosophical difference between
(i) your guitar tech tuning your guitars to your liking manually and handing them back to you
(i) him (or her) scrolling through the menus and sending your guitar a signal to tune up on stage from wherever he's sitting behind the stage
is miniscule. And it's been a long time since I've seen professional performers regularly correct tuning on the stage themselves. I just see them hand their guitars to their techs and get a new one. Your lovably archaic "having to spend a second or two to twist a tuning key a tiny fraction of an inch" sounds easier than it is when 10,000 people in the arena are watching. It still happens, but rarely. Joan Baez did it when I saw her in Bonn two weeks ago, but she was alone on stage and had an audience of aging baby boomers eating from her hands who would have given her 10 minutes of tuning up time just to listen to the stories she was telling while she was doing it.
I've been to Eagles concerts - those beloved or derided purveyors of perfection - where an acoustic guitar was out of tune and I bet Glenn Frey (who can probably tune a guitar quite well, but choses not to at concerts I've seen) and his guitar tech would have appreciated automatic tuning in the middle of the song to get the tuning just right. And I've only recently been to a Blackmore's Night concert where one of the stringed instruments - it was baking hot in that hall - was so badly out of tune it kept Herr Blackmore from playing that particular song which put him in a pissed off mood for the rest of the evening (and had his guitar tech probably fear for his life), he is difficult that way. Now I know that mentioning him is a bone of contention here and that is why I regularly avoid it, but last I heard I believed we were all in agreement that he can tune a guitar. He used to do so in the 70ies quite often on stage after having put his Strat through the usual tremolo arm rigours.
All this just to point out: It ain't necessarily so.
-
I wouldn't know about Eagles concerts. The vast majority of working musicians aren't playing 10,000 seat arenas and don't have techs to hand their guitars to.
You'll have an easier time convincing all the T-Bird lovers here to ditch their chrome than to convince me that built-in robotuners will replace real tuning keys.
-
Töday ze wörld, tömörröw ze chröme!
-
A number should consider giving up playing even without problems like that. I don't know when it was that everybody and his mother decided to become a guitarist. Of course, for the ones who are good, that's fine. But an unfortunate number are not good, IMHO.
Being good presents it's own hazards. Often these are not the best team players.
A shitty guitarist (exceptionstfor those in denial; same pitfalls as good guitards apply) with perseverance and chutzpah can grow to become a really good, in the sense of usefulness to a band, player. Innovative and interesting even. Everyone has to start somewhere, and just because you start with some sort of talent or skill advantage doesn't mean you can go further in the long run. This includes one's ear and sense of timing (these can be developed).
I mean, I can tune by ear, if I have to. The guitar/bass will be in tune with itself but not necessarily with everyone else. So I use a tuner.
-
Töday ze wörld, tömörröw ze chröme!
Kamerade, for you ze war is over!
-
Wot, already?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw1czzqXhr8
-
It looks like across the board price reductions on the 2015s have begun. It's only 10% so far, and I don't think that will be nearly enough on the over-$2000 models. A T-Bird is still $2339.
Gibson Great Deals (http://www.musiciansfriend.com/gibson-great-deals?src=3TP5GPC)