Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Gilliangirl

Why the current hate-on for Firebird?

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. [thumbup]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pics 4 & 5 didnt show up for me. [sad]

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Firebird X is like some kind of fun house mirror uglification of a beautiful classic.

What a waste of wood. [thumbdn]

 

It's like a Firebird and a Jackson Dominion had sex and the Firebird X is the mutated offspring. It flatters neither of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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. : /

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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....[thumbup]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truly couldn't be said any better. [thumbup]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...