Talk:Gibson Thunderbird

Design Mistake?

The Article says that the orignal version had an extended bass horn which would look like this http://www.frettedamericana.com/product/1965-gibson-firebird-i-non-reverse but the models with an extended trebler horn are older http://www.frettedamericana.com/product/1963-gibson-firebird-iii-reverse-ex-carlos-santana. Am I missing something because I assume the bass horn is where the low E string is, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.147.126 (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

High Output?

I really wish there was a citation for the statement, "Due to the large amount of wood under the strings and pickups, this bass has a very high output volume, even more so than many active basses such as the Fender Deluxe Jazz Bass," as I'm pretty sure the high output of a thunderbird bass is due to the TB+ pickups, and has nothing to do with the amount of wood under the strings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryllkill (talk • contribs) 14:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-Reverse Thunderbirds

I added the term, "Non-Reverse" to the first sub heading under, "Design and Construction," as I thought just saying, "Thunderbirds," in an article about Thunderbirds (both rev and non-rev).thryllkill (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And then I edited the paragraph itself to reflect that non-reverse thunderbirds are the rarity so sought after.thryllkill (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Murderface

I added William Murderface to the list of notable musicians who play Thunderbirds. I know he's fictional, but he's fairly well known, and, as far as I know, there aren't any other ones, so I didn't think it warranted a new section.--Agent Aquamarine 03:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Pete Way

Astonished to discover Pete Way's absence, so have included him. (Bigfatspider 22:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC))

Epiphone Goth Thunderbird

Does the Epiphone Gothic Thunderbird really come with Gibson pickups as stock? I own one and seriously doubt it does. I've also read the Epiphone Humbuckers and Gibson Humbuckers are a slightly different size meaning the Gibson one won't fit on the Epiphone (without modification).

Also, what about some info. on the Epiphone Nikki Sixx Blackbird?

Big and daft 10:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Big and Daft

It doesn't come with Gibson Humbuckers stock, so I fixed it. I'm not sure about the route being a different size. I'd love more info on the epi blackbird. Maybe I'll do a quick write up about it tonight, and if no one objects add it lated this weekend. thryllkill (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Easily destructible?

This is hardly the Norm. The quote says that after Keith Moon knocked over John's T Bird, John got enraged and smashed it to pieces. That is the supporting evidence? I could drive a Hummer into a wall at 90 mph and smash it to pieces, but I wouln't claim it to be easily destructible. In my experience, Thunderbirds are amazingly sturdy. Can we remove or edit the wording of that section?

In addition... I will offer up this: Gibson as a company chooses to use an angled headstock. Coupled with a fast, narrow/thin neck (in comparison to most Fenders)it creates a design that may crak fairly easily at the nut. This is because there is the thinnest area of he entire guitar, and a big angled headstock all cut out of one piece of wood. This is the Achilles Heel of ALL Gibson guitars, not just Thunderbirds. Can we add/edit this into that section as well?

-New member to Wiki, so I would prefer someone a bit more experienced take the reigns on this. If I don't see aything changed in a bit, I'll read up and try it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GibsonBird (talk • contribs) 16:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: "Personal experiance" on Wikipedia = original research The policy is NO original research. All information must be accompanied by a verifiable source that passes Wikipedia's reliable sources policy. Hope that helps. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

-Ok I see that the John Entwistle comment needs citation... I just feel it is a bit too opinionated, and it is conjecture regarding the "weakness" of a Thunderbird. I have a Gibson Thunderbird with a cracked headstock from being dropped. It did not "fall off" as was written, and it is actually very easy to repair. I am looking for a solid source which to quote from that matches my (and many players) own research and opinions. In the mean time, I think we should edit the Main Article to at least remove the uncited claims that Thunderbirds are weak/fragile. This is really not the case.... GibsonBird (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

More about the Criticisms

I really feel like the more I read that section, the only player ever mentioned is John Entwistle. I don't dare take anything away from how great of a musician he was.... but just because he put Fender necks on T Birds, doesn't mean the thin neck is a legit criticism of the T Bird.

-A lot of players feel like the neck of a Bird is perfect, especially for Rock n Roll.

-I know it seems really petty, but I mention this stuff because the overall article reads like the design is flawed. It may not have been right for 1 SPECIFIC musician, but no matter how popular he is/was, it shouldn't be a "fact" about the guitar.

-Should we quote Nikki Sixx about how perfect he thinks TBirds are? Because that will negate a lot of Entwistle's opinions...

GibsonBird (talk) 09:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete the Criticism Section?

There is absolutely no citations and the fact that wikipedia forbids original research means there probably never will be. The section reads like someone has some sort of pro p-bass, anti-thunderbird agenda (why some people have to break everything down into blank vs blank is beyond me). I will wait a few days before taking any action my self to allow for discussion.76.250.136.54 (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree entirely that sources cannot be found. "Criticism" may be too harsh a phrase, but all the points noted are inherent qualities that suit the bass to certain players and applications - and will have been noted for years in magazines. It might be worth reworking into a section on attributes instead? Thedarxide (talk) 09:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. I suppose because I only read user reviews online I completely forgot about magazine equipment reviews. I do agree about making a section on attributes instead as well, simply because it would read a lot better than a simple bullet point list. Same guy as above, I haven't bothered registering a name yet. 76.235.33.176 (talk) 06:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gibson Thunderbird. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516195623/http://www.gibson.com/products/gibson/bass/nikkisixxbass.html to http://www.gibson.com/products/gibson/Bass/nikkisixxbass.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)