Thunderbirds? Why no Basschat Love?

[BigRedX]

[quote name='Balcro' post='894636' date='Jul 14 2010, 12:49 PM']Keep the same overall configuration: make the body a little deeper. Inset the neck deeper into the body and consequently move the bridge closer to the edge of the body. Extend the top horn about 4-5" and point the strap pin at the 9th fret. Simples. Where's my pencil?

Balcro.[/quote]
But then it would no longer be a Thunderbird.

In the same way if I fixed the multitude of issues I have with Fender basses they'd no longer really be Precessions or Jazzes...

[Meenie]

you buy a dodge charger because it looks ace and goes fast in a straight line,its completely impractical and economically a dumb idea but if you love dodge chargers you wont care.

The same goes for T Birds in my opinion.

They are coolness personified...well not personified more guitaronified but you know what i mean right?

[Rayman]

I loved my Epi T bird. Used it in a UFO tribute band and loved every minute of it.

I for one [i]love[/i] T-Birds.

[BigRedX]

[quote name='Balcro' post='894636' date='Jul 14 2010, 12:49 PM']Keep the same overall configuration: make the body a little deeper. Inset the neck deeper into the body and consequently move the bridge closer to the edge of the body. Extend the top horn about 4-5" and point the strap pin at the 9th fret. Simples. Where's my pencil?

Balcro.[/quote]
Actually it's already been done:

[Balcro]

[quote name='BigRedX' post='894778' date='Jul 14 2010, 03:25 PM']But then it would no longer be a Thunderbird.[/quote]

But it could be Thunderbird Mk111 or Thunderbird 2011. As your picture shows small changes can make a big difference. It wouldn't necessarily mean that you lose the essence of what is a Thunderbird.

Balcro.

[bassmanAzz]

I have a white Epi T-Bird and i love it. Though since then i now also have a Lakland it kinda has been pushed to the shadows but i still do play it and love it.
I love the warmth of it and the shape. I dont have a roblem with the neck being heavy either :S maybe thats just me

I stand by the Thunderbird lovers

Aaron

[Ian Savage]

Love the look of 'em, love the feel of 'em, love the sound of 'em - can't get on with the neck dive (Thunderbirds that have buckle rash on the back of them haven't been played at the right height IMO - they should be well below the belt buckle ), and irritated by the fact they they neither stand up on their own nor fit into any normal guitar stand.

Still holding out for a MusicMan Stingray SUB as my rock bass, then

[Musicman20]

Is the Mike Lull TBird comfortable?

[Shaggy]

[quote name='WHUFC BASS' post='894617' date='Jul 14 2010, 12:41 PM']Mahogany just isn't a great wood to use on basses.[/quote]

A few Wal owners would disagree with you........

[quote name='WHUFC BASS' post='894617' date='Jul 14 2010, 12:41 PM']IMO to a certain degree Gibson are a company living off their name.[/quote]

......can't argue with that though!

[BigRedX]

By all accounts it is. Have a look on TalkBass where it's been getting some very favourable comments.

Other than the cost the only thing putting me off ordering one right now is the non-angled headstock which means the use of tuning impediments such as string tress and winding stupid amounts of the strings around the machine heads to get a decent break angle over the nut. Also I'm still not convinced about the bolt-on neck. None of my favourite basses have bolt-on necks and a well made through or set neck will always make upper fret access easier.

[tom1946]

If I could get past how they look I'd try one.
They're ugly basses to me, the bottom horn looks like a growth, really put off by that.

wouldn't do if we all liked the same thing.

[Chappers]

T'bird is on my GAS list as I type

[spinynorman]

I briefly had a white Epi. Really had no problems with the sound or ergonomics, it just felt like dating an 18 year-old (I'm 58). Nice in theory, but ...

Those who like the everything about them except the neck, try to find a Greco. They're apparently more P-bass profile, while keeping all the other Gibsonish characteristics.

[bassmachine2112]

hiho,I,ve gotta epi pro 4
the set up was to put it mildly rubbish but I set them up myself so no problems apart from a bit of time.
It is now nicely set up and plays very well thank you.
It might be me but the maple through neck makes a difference,different feel to the bolt ons and the neck is slim all the way like a ricky but slimmer.
Sound wise it,s a bird alright but more not zingy like a stingray and not complex and rich like a ricky and not fendery either.It has it,s own voice which with the active circuit makes it a good all rounder.
Upper fret acess ,well if you spend your time above the 15 fret a lot of the time then maybe a baritone is where you should be.
Set up problems
-high 8th fret-dressed
-too much relief on neck-loosen truss rod
-nut too high-stoned height off the bottom of the brass nut,keeping profile the same
-readjust saddles for string height
The new bridge is a winner,big improvement on the 3 point effort
I do like it and it fits in well with my other basses
There has been quiet a bit of interest on this one

[Marky L]

Wow, I totaly missed this thread somehow!

Yup I have a Gibson T'bird and I do love it, warts and all. Saying that I hadn't gigged it for a long time until a month or so back and thoroughly enjoyed doing so.

The neck dive is a pain but you get used to it and I suppose my appaling right hand pick technique works well with the T'bird as I don't really have any issues there. I like the slim yet chunky neck though playing up the dusty end can be a bit of a challenge. And yes it should be hanging around your knees!

Tonally I do think it is a wee bit limited but then I am a bit of an "it's either on or off" type guy. I find it has a big fat sound that lacks a little brightness maybe but has yards of sustain. I've never had issues through my Ashdown gear either, but maybe I like what others would see as a ropey sound? I dunno.

It does of course absolutely scream RAAAAAAAAAAWK!!! at you, I love the look but maybe the body is the tiniest bit small. Could it take another centimetre all the way round? Oh and I think the headstock is delightful.

If they're good enough for Paul Grey (ex Damned, UFO etc) and what he can wring out of them then they're good enough for me.

[ogrimark]

I love em personally. When my old man died i had only been playing bass for just over a year and i decided that the £600 that i got from him would be best spent on a trace combo and an epi tbird. i thought about the tbird goth but didn't like the fact it didn't have the bird on it. I have moved the straplock to behind the neck and it sorted out the neck dive problem and i think it made it more balanced as i get less backache with it during a gig now.
I love the tone of it through my trace rig. If i could afford one i would try the gibson, but due to my inability to not buy shiney things i don't think i will ever see one. Although when i finish in the Army in 2 years and get a nice payout i may be tempted then. I am tempted to find out the difference between the thunderbird IV and the thunderbird pro. I am still a novice when it comes to playing (only been doin it 4 1/2 years now) and i have never played an active bass.
I played my mates P bass and was not overly impressed with it, after all the hype i was expecting more.

you can def stick me on the 'love em' side of the list.

[Marky L]

Well, here's something I didn't expect to see, Lemmy with a T'bird.


[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaFcx09BII4&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaFcx09BII4...feature=related[/url]



(Uhm..how do I embed the actual youtube clip here?)

Edited July 15, 2010 by Marky L

[Tegs]

Best looking bass ever. Simples.

Just like everything though, there's good 'uns and bad 'uns. My 1998 Gibson IV has absolutely no neck dive, sustains to the end of the earth and as for them being a pick only bass, I have to disagree as I never use one.

The Epi I have has a wider neck than the Gibson but you soon get used it. I can see why Entwhistle created the 'Fenderbird' though!!

[Ou7shined]

I wonder if now would be about the right time to change the title of this thread?

[Supertim]

I might well be time to change the thread title, plenty of love on here now! Glad my first real thread was popular

[Supertim]

I might well be time to change the thread title, plenty of love on here now! Glad my first real thread was popular

[Shaggy]

[quote name='BigRedX' post='894920' date='Jul 14 2010, 06:21 PM']Actually it's already been done:

[/quote]

Early Overwater? Lurverly!

[BigRedX]

Indeed! An '86 according to Chris May

In fact it's the ownership off this (and the cost) that is putting me off ordering a Mike Lull T-Bass V, as this has all the things that worry me about the T-Bass already sorted IMO (angled head, through neck). It's just the shape isn't really a Thunderbird.

(I also have an '83/84 fretless version too..)

[Low End Bee]

If they're good enough for Overend. They're fine by me.

[neepheid]

Well, just to balance things out - I don't rate them. Although I have only tried a Tokai copy, I can safely say that the T-bird is one avenue I do not wish to continue on any further. Nice enough sound, I liked the neck on the Tokai (being a bit chunkier than a Gibson), the famed neck dive was manageable (in that the bass gracefully descended to about horizontal) but the ergonomics are all wrong. Poor high fret access. Doesn't sit right on me when I'm playing. Doesn't stand up on its own. Doesn't fit in a regular gig bag/case.

It would have to have been stellar in all other respects for me to keep it but it was simply OK, and I chose not to put up with all the ergonomic annoyances for something that's simply OK.