Many Just Don't Get IT, Gibson Thunderbird

[godofthunder59]

I swear some of you guys take this stuff way too seriously.

Thunderbirds are cool.

Just ask Lady Penelope

That was for all the geezers my age.

This is AWESOME ^

 

[Dynacord]

Humor, many just don't get it.

Some indication of humor or irony might be helpful... (those emoticons may be a bit insipid but they can be useful) especially as the comment sounds so close to many of the comments that were serious. If you were trying to lighten things up, sorry that I didn't catch your intent.

Though I did wonder about including people like Dave Pomeroy as a douche bag...

Again, totally cool to say instrument X doesn't appeal to me -- my gripe comes in when people assume that everyone that plays instrument X must be deluded or similar.

 

[Kaa]

I don't "get" anything that even kinda looks like Leo Fender designed it...........Happily.

I don't think there's anything to "get". It's a piece of wood cut on a specific pattern. Same as the T-bird.

It's like a painting, you like one, you don't like another, doesn't mean you are right or wrong, it's just your taste.

Once again, it's all the individual's taste, nothing right or wrong.

Let's put this thread to bed.

 

[dinogroovie]

I still want one.
'nuff said.

 

[Dr. Eagle]

Let's put this thread to bed.

Noooooooooooooooooooooo

It's way too much fun!

 

[DeathFromBelow]

This thread is AMAZING. I need a Thunderbird...

 

[beebassdude]

ive seriously been considering buying a t-bird as i love gibson basses. are there any big differences between the overall tone/feel of the 60s versions and the bicentennials? the 70s ones would be more affordable for me (although theyre still like 2500+) but if im gonna plunk down money on one of these pieces i wanna make sure i get the right one for me.

 

[Dynacord]

ive seriously been considering buying a t-bird as i love gibson basses. are there any big differences between the overall tone/feel of the 60s versions and the bicentennials? the 70s ones would be more affordable for me (although theyre still like 2500+) but if im gonna plunk down money on one of these pieces i wanna make sure i get the right one for me.

The main differences are the bridges and the pickups. The pickups are very different - Mike Lull makes very good reproductions now (if I were to buy a new bird, I'd buy a Lull, not a Gibson). That is not to say the 70s pups are bad but the '60s ones sound much stronger and with great clarity to my ear. The original bridges can be a problem to intonate with roundwounds (they originally came with flats) but godofthunder59 on this thread makes a great direct retrofit (very high quality - that uses the existing studs and tailpiece). Of course, best if you can try them to see which you like best (or if you like them at all). Easier said than done, I know...

 

[StuFordBass]

Some indication of humor or irony might be helpful... (those emoticons may be a bit insipid but they can be useful) especially as the comment sounds so close to many of they comments that were serious. If you were trying to lighten things up, sorry that I didn't catch your intent.

Though I did wonder about including people like Dave Pomeroy as a douche bag...

Again, totally cool to say instrument X doesn't appeal to me -- my gripe comes in when people assume that everyone that plays instrument X must be deluded or similar.

Pomeroy is legit... Too legit to quit, in fact. I was only trying to say that rather than add to 17 pages of conflicting opinions, I'd just agree with the OP in saying that some just don't get it.

 

[Rob Martinez]

Humor, many just don't get it.

One indication of humor is to actually be funny. Which you are not.

 

[Dynacord]

Pomeroy is legit... Too legit to quit, in fact. I was only trying to say that rather than add to 17 pages of conflicting opinions, I'd just agree with the OP in saying that some just don't get it.

Cool.

 

[beebassdude]

The main differences are the bridges and the pickups. The pickups are very different - Mike Lull makes very good reproductions now (if I were to buy a new bird, I'd buy a Lull, not a Gibson). That is not to say the 70s pups are bad but the '60s ones sound much stronger and with great clarity to my ear. The original bridges can be a problem to intonate with roundwounds (they originally came with flats) but godofthunder59 on this thread makes a great direct retrofit (very high quality - that uses the existing studs and tailpiece). Of course, best if you can try them to see which you like best (or if you like them at all). Easier said than done, I know...

i know ill like the feel of it, i like bigger basses with big necks, feels much better to me playing sludge/doom metal. im not about to start playing bill dickens riffs on a thunderbird in drop G so neck dive/weight/body size/neck thickness is not a concern. the pickups however are.

so the 60s ones have the "bigger" sound to them? i guess id prefer whichever one sounds more huge and thunderous. im assuming IYO that would be the 60s ones?

 

[Rob Martinez]

The main differences are the bridges and the pickups. The pickups are very different - Mike Lull makes very good reproductions now (if I were to buy a new bird, I'd buy a Lull, not a Gibson). That is not to say the 70s pups are bad but the '60s ones sound much stronger and with great clarity to my ear. The original bridges can be a problem to intonate with roundwounds (they originally came with flats) but godofthunder59 on this thread makes a great direct retrofit (very high quality - that uses the existing studs and tailpiece). Of course, best if you can try them to see which you like best (or if you like them at all). Easier said than done, I know...

I have the Lull PUs in my Gibson Thunderbird Studio bass, they are great, clarity, sizzle, and punch.

 

[Dynacord]

i know ill like the feel of it, i like bigger basses with big necks, feels much better to me playing sludge/doom metal. im not about to start playing bill dickens riffs on a thunderbird in drop G so neck dive/weight/body size/neck thickness is not a concern. the pickups however are.

so the 60s ones have the "bigger" sound to them? i guess id prefer whichever one sounds more huge and thunderous. im assuming IYO that would be the 60s ones?

The 60s ones sound distinctly bigger and stronger than the 70s ones to me. If money is a concern, you could get 90% of the way there with a newer bird with the Lull pups - which he does sell separately. A lot of people have been doing that with the Bach non-reverse bird copies (and if you hate the t-bird look, you can put them in another type of bass - I have a set of chrome t-bird pups (not the Lulls) in a P-bass. Great bass - though it doesn't have the neck-through character which is a plus or minus depending on what you prefer.)

 

[beebassdude]

The 60s ones sound distinctly bigger and stronger than the 70s ones to me. If money is a concern, you could get 90% of the way there with a newer bird with the Lull pups - which he does sell separately. A lot of people have been doing that with the Bach non-reverse bird copies (and if you hate the t-bird look, you can put them in another type of bass - I have a set of chrome t-bird pups (not the Lulls) in a P-bass. Great bass - though it doesn't have the neck-through character which is a plus or minus depending on what you prefer.

im a sucker for anything old so id like to get an old one. but some of the 60s ones are a little nuts in price for me. i always consider vintage P basses insanely overpriced considering how theres always thousands of them for sale, but the 60s birds are somewhat rare and cost upwards of 7k.

itd be nice to A/B a 60s vs a 70s on the same SVT rig and compare tones, but i cant imagine a time where ill have both of those basses available in the same location.

side note: whats the difference between the II and the IV? i know the IV had two pickups, but was there a major tonal difference? and also, according to fly guitars between 63-65 they only churned out about 1000 of these things? if thats correct, wow.

 

[TBird1958]

Here's some shots of a '76 pickup, a single coil with side mounted magnets - note the height too.

Lull pickups are exact repros of the early '60s Gibson design - a large flat single coil that incorporates the metal plate on the bottom to "focus" the signal ( quoting Lull here ) again note the height or lack of it, a very thin pickup. Using these in a contemporary Gibson gives you an affordable bass with true vintage Thunderbird tone.

Interesting to note in post '88 Thunderbirds there are at least 4 variations of pickups.......The closer one is from my '89, in back is one from 2004. Both have had their plastic outer covers removed and have been potted into N.O.S. '76 covers here.

 

[Basshappi]

I read somewhere that the 60s pups are actually the same ones that Gibson used in its steel guitars they just put them in a metal cover. Is this correct Mark?

 

[Dynacord]

I read somewhere that the 60s pups are actually the same ones that Gibson used in its steel guitars they just put them in a metal cover. Is this correct Mark?

This is my understanding.

 

[beebassdude]

david, what is the difference between the II and the IV in regards to the pickups?

 

[SanDiegoHarry]

I find it interesting that the design of the p'up changed so much -

Was it that they were trying to improve something (tone/output) or save money? I'm less familiar with Gibson than I am Fender (as a company) and it seems like in this period, everything Fender did was to save money...