Ring.... Ring.... "Hello.... uhhhuh... What?... I can't hear..... Stop crying and calm down.... I can't understand you.... Take a deep breath..... Who is this?..... Ohh... Burt.... Wassup?.... Yes... uhhuh... Yes... I know your bass playing customers hate you..... Yes.... calm down.... Well at least you aren't as hated as John Hall...."
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Gibson basses. When Burt calls.
- Thread starter SteffanB
- Start date
Well, if you own one and you're still asking nothing I say is gonna matter much - but since you asked:I honestly don't understand this sentiment - I see it often here on TB, and other places.
Why do people hate the 3-point so much?
I can see disliking it, or it's not your cup-o-tea; and, if someone likes to incessantly adjust string-height, or likes some unique string-height adjustments that don't follow the fretboard radius, definitely not the best choice - but outright hate, that I see so often? Why?
Izzit perfect?
No.
Could it use some revisions/modernization?
Maybe?
But, I think it's a much better design than nearly (aka, almost) all factory & aftermarket bridges.
If someone could help me understand why so many people despise it, that would be great!
None of the arguments I've heard thus far are very convincing....
(other than the string-height thing mentioned above, and that really shouldn't warrant hatred....)
It doesn't make full contact with the body of the bass, and when you change strings it all falls apart. And there wasn't an aftermarket upgrade for it (that didn't require drilling) until recently. Speaking for myself I'd say I don't hate the thing, but never would I prefer it.
See, that I can understand, no problem.
I feel the same about traditional-style bridges
The contact thing...it is what it is, I guess.
I've got four Thunderbirds that came with the 3-point, one of which now has a Babicz replacement.
But they're all different enough that I can't really speak to any real difference provided by greater body contact.
My 5-string T-bird has a traditional screws-onto-the-body bridge, with standard grub-screw adjusted saddles, and it's...meh, at best. I'm working on a solution for replacement, probably Babicz Solorails.
The saddles falling out - I found out about that the first time I changed strings on my first Thunderbird, and flipped it over while cleaning
Didn't realize at the time they were numbered, either, so I put it back together wrong
Since that experience, I either just remove the saddles before I turning it over, or put on a strip of blue masking tape to hold them in place
Well that's just absolutely sensible. Which is exactly why it can't be expected of me.Since that experience, I either just remove the saddles before I turning it over, or put on a strip of blue masking tape to hold them in place
No, these two models were made in the mid nineties at the Main plant in Nashville.
There's not a lot of them around. I've seen pictures of the Chibson blue one (EB650), I have to admit that it looks pretty badass. Looks can be decieving...
Will do once I get a good photo =0)You might come by the Thunderbird Club and post this, you still have #770.
ecause
I'd appreciate it if you could tell me what it is about it that you feel is so awful? Because having owned a few of them I don't see what the problem is.
I'm not sure how that really matters. I've played Gibsons that had aftermarket bridges installed, and didn't hear any improvements in the tone or sustain because of it. I also have a Gibson EB with the Gibson factory installed Babicz bridge. And I'm totally unimpressed with that bridge as well.
Can't say that ever happened to me. The bridge saddles are free floating. But unless you're turning the bass over when you're restringing I don't see how it all falls apart.
Most of their bass designs don’t seem to trip people’s trigger but there are some that do. I’d tell him continue the Jack Casady line in both Epi and Gibson in various colors.
Then, I’d get really radical with the T-bird. Continue the “vintage” line of reverse and non-reverse T-birds then make a “modern” line that has modern upgrades such as:
1) Get rid of the raised center block and put contours on the body (tummy cut on the back and arm contour on the fin) some of the biggest drawbacks with Gibsons (IMO) is that they’re all slabs and arch tops without any real creature comforts.
2) Optional Figured maple or other nice wood tops and colors (and get rid of the useless pickguard).
3) Better pickup and electronics options. Have Ps, Js, and MM pickups as options and maybe a nice preamp or two to choose from if you want active electronics.
4) get rid of the 3 point bridge for crying out loud and use a modern one like everyone else.
5) make a short scale option that focuses on light weight and minimizing neck dive.
6) make a multi-scale model (they seem to be the wave of the future) with a 4 and 5 string option to compete with the Dingwall D-bird/D-Roc.
I think those are good starting points. It’s sad that most companies that make a T-bird copy do it sooo much better than Gibson.
Then, I’d get really radical with the T-bird. Continue the “vintage” line of reverse and non-reverse T-birds then make a “modern” line that has modern upgrades such as:
1) Get rid of the raised center block and put contours on the body (tummy cut on the back and arm contour on the fin) some of the biggest drawbacks with Gibsons (IMO) is that they’re all slabs and arch tops without any real creature comforts.
2) Optional Figured maple or other nice wood tops and colors (and get rid of the useless pickguard).
3) Better pickup and electronics options. Have Ps, Js, and MM pickups as options and maybe a nice preamp or two to choose from if you want active electronics.
4) get rid of the 3 point bridge for crying out loud and use a modern one like everyone else.
5) make a short scale option that focuses on light weight and minimizing neck dive.
6) make a multi-scale model (they seem to be the wave of the future) with a 4 and 5 string option to compete with the Dingwall D-bird/D-Roc.
I think those are good starting points. It’s sad that most companies that make a T-bird copy do it sooo much better than Gibson.
The problem with that bass is the headstock, IMO. The Tbird headstock just doesn’t belong there. That bass needs the V/Grabber style 2 on a side arrowhead headstock. It’s just not a “giant headstock” style bass. It’s like putting a big ‘ol Fender headstock on a Hofner. It looks out of place as all get out.
- Mar 13, 2008
- 18,894
- 142,211
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist Mike Lull T Bass pickups, The Bass Shop, Seattle WA.
They made a short scale back in 2011, redesigned the Thunderbird as the "Studio" line back in 2006, contoured body and new bridge............
The 3 point bridge is fine you just have to be at least half as smart as it is if you're going to work on it.
Note: the shortscale version doesn't have the raised center block, either! Still slab sides tho.
Nor does the Non-Reverse. Not sure why the raised center block would be considered undesirable. I think it gives the Thunderbird a lot of its character. Plus, making the body flat on the neck-through would probably require making the body wings thicker, adding more weight.
I like the ridge on standard Tbirds for my thumb sometimes, if I remember right - It's been like 15 years since I had the Nikki Sixx Blackbird (only other Tbird I have had besides the short one)
Sure, the 3 point works… I’ve yet to find anyone who actually likes it. It’s kinda like the old Ric bridges. Most people immediately look to upgrade to the Hipshot or Babicz alternative (on the Gibsons). Everyone else (like Mike Lull) just built a better mousetrap.
- Mar 13, 2008
- 18,894
- 142,211
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist Mike Lull T Bass pickups, The Bass Shop, Seattle WA.
I like mine just fine, they work well and when set up properly (mine were all done by Mike Lull BTW) they don't require anything special for care. The action can set set nice and low, no problem with sustain, I have them on two 45 year old Thunderbirds and on a couple on newer ones, never had a problem. I got to know Mike a little as he was doing all my set ups for me and he liked the 3 point for what it is. He choose to have Hipshot make the 2 point bridge for his T4/T5s because he wanted the bass to be more like the '60s Gibson rather than any dislike for the 3 point, I am fortunate to own the first production T4 and in all fairness it's a step up from Gibson in quality, as it should be, being almost handmade - it was quite a bit more expensive and not a good comparison to a mass production bass.
My specific complaints about it are incredibly common. I don't ever complain about weird "ergonomic" issues & neck-dive or mudbuckers like everyone else does - but if you like the 3 point bridge then that's your good fortune.
Heh...anyone who complains about the Gibson Oil Rig likely hasn't dealt with Guild's version of the same concept, aka Miller Bridge...I'm on my second one and can't wait to rip it out.
On a more serious note, I lived with the 3-point on my RD Standard for ~11 years, set it once, always used the same type of strings and never gave it a second thought. But that was many harvests ago, when no alternatives existed. Nowadays, a Gibson comes into my house with a 2-point or a 3-point and a Hipshot replacement gets ordered immediately.
The best bridge that Gibson ever used IMO was the Schaller roller bridge from the '80s, seen on Victory, Explorer and Bass IV - possibly others - and I'll never understand why they haven't stuck with it.
