Damn, he made that bird sound like a (beefy) j! Cool video thru.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHNvF5l0QE0
"I like odd basses"! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Me too Matt!
Thou shall not slap your Birds, but he does it nicely. "Oddball basses" - tsk, tsk, tsk!
Whenever I use a flanger, I find I cut through the mix less.
Oddball? Now if he were talking about Bongos...
"this is much a better instrum..."
Pah! :o
and what the hell is that noise???
Oddball? Really? The Thunderbird design is only 45 years old after all. ::)
I hate when people review non-Fender basses and can only think of Fender comparisons for them!
Quote from: n!k on April 23, 2008, 03:43:18 PM
I hate when people review non-Fender basses and can only think of Fender comparisons for them!
Yeah, but everybody knows Fender so it can be a useful point of reference if the person knows what he's talking about.
In bass tests in magazines people mostly compare basses to a J or a P, cos it's just the standard. If you like it or not.
And it's easy to do. Everybody knows how a F****r looks, plays and sounds, so it's easier.
So which one would you compare an EB3 to? A J or a P? ::) ;D
I think it's silly to divide the bass world in two "species".
Quote from: Basvarken on April 24, 2008, 12:54:08 AM
So which one would you compare an EB3 to? A J or a P? ::) ;D
I think it's silly to divide the bass world in two "species".
A J, of course -- if a J were short scale, mahogany, had an ultra-powerful neck pickup, a varitone, a fiddly bridge, a 2+2 tiltback headstock that's prone to breakage and narrow string spacing. ;D
Why, they're almost identical. ;)
Fender set a standard with 34" basses. So if you call an EB3 a shortscale, you already compare it to a Fender! The pick up is called a mudbucker, cos it's very muddy, compared to... A Fender:)
Don't discuss with me. I'm always right. ;D
BTW: Maybe we Gibson-freaks can set new standards. Everything 30" is 'normal scale' and 34" is extra long. A mudbucker will be a normal pick up and we can call a split P pick up a thinbucker or something:)
Regardless what he said, he sure did some nice things with that TB and he did give it the respect it deserves!
I think there are more similarities between a J and a TB than between a P and a TB. I'd even go as far as to say that Gibson in 1963 upon the introduction of the TB had the J clearly in mind as a benchmark. The string spacing, the more elegant looks and even the envisaged market. Remember how the Firebirds and Thunderbirds were aimed at the more seasoned, jazzy player initially. They were not rockers' guitars.
Uwe
Did someone ever measured and compared the pick up placement of both basses?
Nice clip (though it's not my favorite sound he had). Also I do find my T'birds do have height adjustment on the bridges. Guess he meant individual height adjustment.
It's always interesting to hear different people's perspectives on a familiar instrument. I can appreciate Mark King, Jaco, and Paul Jackson too. Just seems kinda foreign to me seeing Level 42 riffs on a Thunderbird :D. Not that it can't pull it off - it just doesn't seem to be "voiced" in a way that I would pair it up with those styles.
I guess that's what draws me to (oddball) basses that have a unique sound - exploit what they do best, and save the slappin' for the Modulus! And preferably *not* thru a flanger in a band setting! ;D I think its fun getting on different basses and letting their characteristics or idiosyncrasies influence my approach a bit. Some people, on the other hand, hate that.
Still a cool clip, and he (or his shop) did a nice job on that sunburst finish!