Firebird X

[neilpanda]

I think its a pretty cool concept, just dont like the look of the so called firebird.

http://www2.gibson.com/Products/Electric-Guitars/Firebird/Gibson-USA/Firebird-X.aspx

[ChanMan]

Cool, but not on my "X" mas list....

[dem00n]

cool idea but not the least bit practical or affordable; made for collectors not real players.

I forgot you wrote books on guitars and guitar players.

[neilpanda]

Cool, but not on my "X" mas list....

hehehe

[ChanMan]

I forgot you wrote books on guitars and guitar players.

 

Don't be hatin'

 

Santa is watching you....

 

[Silenced Fred]

I forgot you wrote books on guitars and guitar players.

[Tim Plains]

cool idea but not the least bit practical or affordable; made for collectors not real players.

I disagree. Guys aren't going to buy this and praise it like they would a Brazilian LP or Jimmy Page signature. This is a pure studio guitar, in my opinion.

 

I also disagree with your "cool idea" statement. I think this guitar sucks.

[ChanMan]

I disagree. Guys aren't going to buy this and praise it like they would a Brazilian LP or Jimmy Page signature. This is a pure studio guitar, in my opinion.

 

 

He gets it!

[MrNylon]

If you like that extra stuff on it it's ok.

[Shnate McDuanus]

To me it makes sense as a recording instrument--and I happen to think it's a cool idea and probably much more sophisticated in its implementation of on-board FX technology than earlier guitars with built-in effects that certain other members have mentioned in criticism of the Firebird X. Judging by the video and the sound clips that were posted in the Firebird X forum section, I'd say that the tones were at least usable, some of them really sounding quite good. Assuming that it would probably sell for less than list price (and Gibsons always do,) i will probably cost a shade over three grand in stores. Still I can't afford it, but really, for a guitar with more built-in functionality (I won't comment much on looks or tone--it suffices to say I don't think the X is ugly at all, but it really doesn't look as good as an SG or LP,) than a guitar with standard electronics, it should cost more than most Gibson guitars. It is most definitely a studio-type guitar, but at the same time I can imagine a guy like Allan Holdsworth using one on stage, so...

[Bender 4 Life]

"cool" isn't my decision to make....

I personally have no need, or use for it, but i'm sure there are, and will be, those that do.

I like the Red & Blue "Floor Swirls" finishes 100x better than the "Burst".

[ChanMan]

"cool" isn't my decision to make....

I personally have no need, or use for it, but i'm sure there are, and will be, those that do.

I like the Red & Blue "Floor Swirls" finishes 100x better than the "Burst".

 

 

I could even see it as an all-in-one unit for someone looking for all the features...

 

 

But, again, that isn't me.

[GIANTRobOT42O]

I think the tech part is pretty awesome but the guitar itself looks kinda fugly.

[ChanMan]

I think the tech part is pretty awesome but the guitar itself looks kinda fugly.

 

And Santa puts a +1 under YOUR tree!

 

Ho Ho Ho!

[SG FAN]

Awesome idea in theory, Put it in an SG, and price it under 2 grand, and I might buy it.

[milod]

Okay, my figuring is this: It'd be great for somebody doing solo work as I do, or for the studio.

 

I quit thinking about "looks" a long time ago, but I wouldn't say this one is "ugly" in the sense that I do think some of the "metal" guitars are.

 

Frankly my thought is that it'd look great as a 335. <grin> But whatever. (I don't care much for LPs, but I do like the SG a lot. Go figure.)

 

Anyway, my stop points on this and some similar Gibson offerings are more along the line of price tag and even if I had oodles of cash, I'd wanna play before I'd buy. A decision would depend on the neck.

 

m

[ChanMan]

Awesome idea in theory, Put it in an SG, and price it under 2 grand, and I might buy it.

 

 

 

Yeah, ok... I could see that..., emphasis on under 2k :)

[damian]

I'm with R9..............

[Oringo]

I'm guessing Gibson is aiming this Firebird at the player who's recording directly into his computer at home and wants to lay down all kinds of different sounds and tracks using one instrument. I can't imagine trying to use it on stage.

 

Besides, on stage there's the cool factor of changing guitars for each song!

 

A little while ago I took my son to see a Santana concert and for the opening act, there was a pop/country singer who's very famous in the States, but not that big in Yurrup. She and her band changed instruments for EVERY song, a gaggle of roadies coming on stage to hand them different guitars, but over the massive PA system I couldn't hear ANY difference when her lead guitarist would switch from a Tele to a Firebird, or even when she would pick up an acoustic. I was relieved when they finished their set, then I noticed somehing when the crew started setting up for Santana, they installed monitors...ok maybe the opening act had been using wireless in-ear monitors, but having played back up for many acts like this, I rather suspect it was all pre-recorded and they were just faking it on stage.

 

The crowd was pretty indifferent to the opening act, as they had come to see a great guitarist and this kind of commercial pop is light years away from what people came to see, but at least they got a visual show of a dozen nice guitars on display. I imagine it would have been a hundred times more boring if all we got to see was the band flicking switches and turning knobs on their Firebird X's!