Gilliangirl Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 My mom just sent me this link...... http://guitarsite.com/hotlicks/viewtopic.php?t=5207 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 It's not the Gibson Firebird that is being considered. It's the Gibson Firebird X. There's a fairly big difference. Did you scroll down to have a look at the snaps? My own thought is there are a few listed that are much worse looking..... But not many...... LOL! Just Kidding! P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zonkers Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Thats funny the firebird x is in there twice..... lol I don't know if its hate Karen; its more a Gibson has lost its business sense and is going after collectors more than average players. I know there is a hge profit margin in that guitar; but its going to fail hard and displease loads of people again. It could be the third strike for their expensive line. I bet this thing will sell out but not to players. Also the "Revolution" is not one at all; this stuff (including effects) was done in the 60's and 70's and failed then also. Gibson did not invent the auto tuning and they aren't even the only ones doing it; so I don't see the foundation for the marketing hype. If we rely on history it will show the epic fails in the last decade; not too many purchased the Robot and they made loads of them. I don't understand why the company doesn't stick to what it does best. Basic guitars hand made with no fancy computer junk in them. Just my spin on the situation. Truly couldn't be said any better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobinTheHood Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Pics 4 & 5 didnt show up for me. IMO, the ugliest guitar is #6. Its clever and all, but it just creeps me the eff out. I like the Bigfoot guitar. Something I just noticed about the Firebird-X; when they came out with the new paint-job, they changed the fretboard and markers to regular maple and dots. I think the original fretboard was the best looking part of the guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freak show Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Well, I clicked on the link, but I didn't see any "hate". It's a poll to see which of several guitars people consider to be the ugliest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabba2203 Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 The Firebird X is like some kind of fun house mirror uglification of a beautiful classic. What a waste of wood. It's like a Firebird and a Jackson Dominion had sex and the Firebird X is the mutated offspring. It flatters neither of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wendyw Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 IMO, the ugliest guitar is #6. Its clever and all, but it just creeps me the eff out. I like the Bigfoot guitar. Agreed. Six is freaky, but the Bigfoot is quite awesome. I don't think I'd ever have any of the silly novelty shaped guitars that you can get hold of, but they do make smile and silly songs sometimes deserve silly guitars. :) I like the Firebird, but the X really doesn't do anything for me. : / Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobinTheHood Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 The Firebird X is like some kind of fun house mirror uglification of a beautiful classic. Best description ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swleary Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 I do like the whole concept but man is the firebird x fugly. I only hope Gibson comes to their senses one day and stop production. Next thing you know, they'll be making the FIREBIRD S....has a snow machine in it...haha I like that idea lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damian Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 :unsure: ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigKahune Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 I like it. But Gibson's track record on delivering their audio/signal tech guitars is horrible. So I'm waiting to see what those getting the first deliveries have to say about whether or not they recieved all the gear the Firebird X is susposed to come with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damian Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Ah, a sweet old song; " White Bird Must Fly, Or She Will Die. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luis Coll Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Hate that!... why de people can't accept some advance in the guitar industries and just love classics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damian Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Hate that!... why de people can't accept some advance in the guitar industries and just love classics? Because some Luddites don't view the X thing as an 'advance' and is not yet a classic, and may never be.....I don't know.....I wish Gibson all the best on it. I like my Gibbies to have a couple of pickups, one switch, four knobs, and thats about it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wendyw Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Hate that!... why de people can't accept some advance in the guitar industries and just love classics? I have no particular issue with the tech involved in the guitar. I can see some use for it. I just don't like the design of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobinTheHood Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 I just don't like the design of it. That is part of the reason thay I have such a hard time digesting the tech in this git. It looks all Playskool. They should have made it glossy white, sleek, smooth and outwardly minimalistic like a Mac...and called it the iBird-X. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tartanbeastie Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 does a guitar really need all the tech stuff? isnt part of the deal with learning to play mean learning to tune etc etc... and on stage tuning time is also break time for banter between songs..lol.. seriously though are we going to get to the stage that we just rely on technology to play for us? I agree with the earlier post, hand made instuments of quality that players can buy, not just collectors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryUK Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Why the hate for the Firebird X? Er......'cause it's butt ugly? Expensive? Not needed tech? If I was given one. I'd sell it for a LP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dem00n Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Eh, i think its cause people cant afford it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilliangirl Posted December 9, 2010 Author Share Posted December 9, 2010 Truly couldn't be said any better. Oh okay. Looking at that list of pictures I knew something was amiss here because there are some butt-ugly guitars in that list and to my eyes, the Firebird wasn't one of them :unsure: Thanks for the responses everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Karen... I personally do not understand some of the criticism of the new guitar. Heck, I remember folks badmouthing the Les Paul and Gibson responded with the SG and dumped the Paul a while 'cuz it didn't sell and was too heavy and too expensive and... then some rock jockeys showed up on stage with them and suddenly there was consumer demand to bring them back. Anyway I see the real determining factor as being the marketplace. We'll see. For what it's worth, one of most attractive Gibsons ever, in my mind, was a cutaway flat top made only in '51. A friend has one. She certainly shows her age but sings as beautifully as ever. So... what's success and what's beauty........ m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tman Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 I kinda like it - at least the paint job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brundaddy Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Thats funny the firebird x is in there twice..... lol I don't know if its hate Karen; its more a Gibson has lost its business sense and is going after collectors more than average players. Just my spin on the situation. Starting in the 90's (if not sooner) the vintage market was taking a bite out of Gibson's (and Fender's) sales. Why do you think there are all these cheesy VOS, faded, worn, relic'd, Murphy-aged, road-worn, closet classics, and RI models? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dom_JEM Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 theres a guy that always plays at my local music venue that plays that caravan guitar on the poll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wendyw Posted December 13, 2010 Share Posted December 13, 2010 I think I found the X's grandad on ebay. http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Soviet-USSR-Formanta-electric-guitar-/280588843673?pt=UK_Musical_Instruments_Guitars_CV&hash=item415465fa99 :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.