• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Thunderbird Club

Random Bird pic.
3C5E4FB1-696A-4004-B2EE-E082A0DC6DA0.jpeg
 
that's definitely a bicentennial thunderbird and also sounds like that on the record.


Cool sounding track. Too bad the singer couldn’t be more impossibly good looking or anything :)

And...up at 6am Saturday AND Sunday?! This ain’t right. I have no reason to be up other than I just am :/
 
All I can say is WOW! I didn't even finish the first page. But from what I did read, not a single person was defending Thunderbirds! Don't know how I ended up there, but I hope I never end up there again!

Gibson Thunderbird IV

Just read through a bit of that...pretty funny stuff right there. I especially love the suggestion to make em active so they’ll sound crisper :)
 
Just read through a bit of that...pretty funny stuff right there. I especially love the suggestion to make em active so they’ll sound crisper :)
I like how they compare the price of bolt-on Fenders and StingRays to a neck-thru Thunderbird. By design they should be more expensive. But have you seen the prices of the high end Fender basses lately? They run more than a Thunderbird! I've never picked up a new Fender and was amazed at the quality. Same with the tone, compared to a Bird.
I don't know, maybe we're the crazy ones.
 
I got around to comparing the necks on my VP and '77 Thunderbirds. The VP is 2 1/4" at the bass of the neck, the '77 2 7/16". Width at nut is identical 1 7/16". The '77 at the nut is much slimmer front to back especially at the nut, the flat surface of the headstock travels almost 2" into the neck profile where on the VP it doesn't travel into it at all and that's a good thing, it leaves more material at what we all know is the weak point on Thunderbirds. A few other observations. I have had any number of 76-79 Thunderbirds, most I could never get the action low enough, even with the bridge down as low as it could go. With their very thin necks and a truss rod not up to the job I have never been able to get the neck as flat as I like. Bicentennials came with Gibson Flat wounds most of us yanked the immediately and slapped Rotos on, the necks didn't like the increased tension.
20171217_092518.jpg
 
Last edited:
Some people just don’t get it

I’ve been playing Gibson basses since the late 70’s. First two basses were Gibson’s, so I’ve been reading all this negative stuff for years. Once it’s said enough, it becomes true for tons of folks. My experience with my 2014 Bird was “where have you been all my life?!” Currently a total addict for them. I get how maybe the ergonomics aren’t right for everyone. I’m not as fussed about all that as some seem to be. A bass with a different neck profile can make me approach things differently, which can be a very good thing. Just as one example...
 
I like how they compare the price of bolt-on Fenders and StingRays to a neck-thru Thunderbird. By design they should be more expensive. But have you seen the prices of the high end Fender basses lately? They run more than a Thunderbird! I've never picked up a new Fender and was amazed at the quality. Same with the tone, compared to a Bird.
I don't know, maybe we're the crazy ones.

I’ve got no problem with Fender, Gibson or many other brands. Something out there for everybody. In that thread, the two most common ‘alternatives’ suggested for a ‘Bird was a Stingray or a Jazz bass. Nearly did a coffee spit take there. Two basses that couldn’t be more different than a ‘Bird if they tried.
 
As an eBay Associate, TalkBass may earn a commission from qualifying purchases.
Just read through a bit of that...pretty funny stuff right there. I especially love the suggestion to make em active so they’ll sound crisper :)

In my mind, that thread equates to a bad carpenter blaming his/her tools.

I have played & recorded, Gibson, Fender, Rickenbacker, Spector and a few others. At they end of it all, I hear me. Good and bad.

The basses help point you in different creative directions and the tonal differences are real and contribute as well.
 
All I can say is WOW! I didn't even finish the first page. But from what I did read, not a single person was defending Thunderbirds! Don't know how I ended up there, but I hope I never end up there again!

Gibson Thunderbird IV

Pretty ugly indeed. Same here, had to just get out.
 
I’ve got no problem with Fender, Gibson or many other brands. Something out there for everybody. In that thread, the two most common ‘alternatives’ suggested for a ‘Bird was a Stingray or a Jazz bass. Nearly did a coffee spit take there. Two basses that couldn’t be more different than a ‘Bird if they tried.
Don't get me wrong there's a tool for every job, I have a Jazz, a Precision, and a 4HH Ray. But at least one person said something along the lines of a Jazz being very versatile tone-wise, which I highly disagree with. A Jazz is truly the polar opposite of a Bird, anemic single coil pickups. As for a Ray, if it's a standard 4H, than ya it is very different as well, but at least it is still a fairly aggressive sounding bass compared to a Jazz. But like you said, neither are, in any way, similar to a 'Bird.

Honestly I've only ever seen negativity on that forum. I bet if you went over there and made a thread saying how you love Marshall Plexi's, there'd be nothing but people saying how they suck.
 
Last edited: