Music videos that feature Thunderbirds

[Dave W]

And neither example sounds anything like a TBird.

[4stringer77]

They are bolt on neck basses with Fender style pickups, so it's no surprise they wouldn't sound like a Thunderbird. Then again, the whole reason Thunderbird basses came to be in the first place was a reaction to the Fender bass. It's not far fetched to say that the Thunderbird's present day popularity is due in great part to it's stronger proximity to a Fender bass, at least compared to all of Gibson's previous short scale bass efforts.

[Granny Gremlin]

The only thing that makes them similar to a Fender is the headstock (kinda) and the long scale (the first for Gibson).  After that they're all Gibson.  The pups were sidewinders for chrissakes. Mahogany vs Ash; not a bolt on.  Those are all very anti-Fender characteristics (bolt on is THE defining characteristic of a Fender, a founding concept). Shorties were very out of vogue (and still are the underdog, if less so).  In fact it could be argued that if Gibson never bet as heavily as they did on the PAF and buckers in general, P basses would still be rocking single coils vs the familiar split bucker.

One could argue that the NonRev style was a bit more Fender (offset style like a Jazzmaster) but they litterally flipped the 60s Rev body upside down so whatever.

[Dave W]

The only thing that makes them similar to a Fender is the headstock (kinda) and the long scale (the first for Gibson).  After that they're all Gibson.  The pups were sidewinders for chrissakes. Mahogany vs Ash; not a bolt on.  Those are all very anti-Fender characteristics (bolt on is THE defining characteristic of a Fender, a founding concept). Shorties were very out of vogue (and still are the underdog, if less so).  In fact it could be argued that if Gibson never bet as heavily as they did on the PAF and buckers in general, P basses would still be rocking single coils vs the familiar split bucker.

One could argue that the NonRev style was a bit more Fender (offset style like a Jazzmaster) but they litterally flipped the 60s Rev body upside down so whatever.

My comments were about the Epi NR Bird with the P/J pickups. It's not mahogany, it had a thin veneer of an Asian mahogany look-alike over some soft mystery wood. The pickups are nothing like TBird pickups. FWIW the 60s TBird pickups weren't sidewinders.

[Granny Gremlin]

Ah, fair enuf, the Epi NonRev is a Fender in Gibsonish clothing.

Yes, the 60s pups weren't sidewinders, but they were buckers (with the exception of the split P, a very unFender thing categorically), but the 70s ones were sidewinders; TBirds moved further from Fender territory over time.

[4stringer77]

The Epiphone was just supposed to look cool and be a cheap serviceable bass. I agree it's more like an assembly line bass than a set neck or neck through Thunderbird. The later reverse Epiphone had humbuckers but was still kind of a beginner bass and still a bolt on. What's so bad about PJ pickups anyhow? Check out the Spector CK-4, neck through with pj pickups. I don't know if it sounds like a t bird but it probably sounds good.

[Granny Gremlin]

Nothing inherantly wrong with P/Js (though I am not a fan of Js; I do like a good P even if they're not my favorite or preference) BUT, there is such a wide range of P/J pups spanning the entire range from shit basic to expensive boutique.  Also they look ugly (IMHO) and have absolutely no mojo value aesthetically due to the fact that they are the style of pup used on 95% of  shit or at least budget/bottom of the line basses that aren't distinctly trying to be a copy of something else (and even then sometimes, as demonstrated by that white Explorer above). 

Even the pickups on weirdo 70s Euro basses look cooler to me (granted, what they sound like is more important, but this consideration is not irrelevant).

[amptech]

I have to join the anti P/J group  here. Of course there are good sounding sets and good instruments with them, but they are ugly
together and more often than not ruin the looks of the instrument.

My first P/J experience was a '74 Fender P bass with the typical EMG active P/J set installed. P/J will always remind me of that kind of sound/looks. I ended up filling the J route, winding a 60's style P and putting a mud by the neck. It's pretty now:-)

Agree with Jake too, odd pickups on cheapo/weirdo  basses are often very cool. I love rewinding/redesigning them to sound good.
It's often just taking care of noise, microphonics/contruction and making them a bit hotter and they blast away.

[Basvarken]

Where can I sign up for the anti P/J group? 
I had an Ibanez Soundgear with a P/J combination. Glad I got rid of it.

[Granny Gremlin]

 

I thought maybe I was being unreasonable or a tad harsh.

[bassilisk]

I thought maybe I was being unreasonable or a tad harsh.

Not really - you are of course entitled to your point of view.

I have several excellent quality P/J basses and I find myself quite happy with them.
Their aesthetics don't make me cringe and they all sound wonderful.

Hey, different strokes. right?

[gearHed289]

Anti P/J group? Sounds like something you'd find at TalkBass.  Whatever. I've had a handful, and they're fine. Not my personal preference, but an effective combo in my experience.

[bassilisk]

Anti P/J group? Sounds like something you'd find at TalkBass. 

Now THAT's funny...

[Dave W]

I've only had one P/J, a 90s Fender CS model (before the "relic" days) called the Vintage Precision Bass Custom.


No complaints at all about the tone, after a couple of years I realized that I just couldn't stand the neck profile.

I don't hate P/Js, it just seems like a shame to do a tribute to an iconic Gibson shape and put generic pickups in it.

[Granny Gremlin]

Now that is a good lookin bass, Dave... and I'll take yer word for it that it sounds good too.  P/J can work aesthetically as well as sonically, but sometimes it's like they design an instrument and the pups are an afterthought so they just throw a P/J on without regard as to whether it works or not.