fl00dsm0k3 Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 i like the idea of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 how do you delete these things? That was Funny! Yeah. The site was very slow mid-morning (UK time) for some reason. Sign-in took 45 seconds instead of about one! I wasn't sure if things were being posted or lost... Apparently if you double-post then you just PM a mod and they'll tidy it all up. P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauloon Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 That was Funny! Yeah. The site was very slow mid-morning (UK time) for some reason. Sign-in took 45 seconds instead of about one! I wasn't sure if things were being posted or lost... Apparently if you double-post then you just PM a mod and they'll tidy it all up. P. cheers P. At least ya got a laugh!.........some choice ''cussing'' at this end! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morkolo Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 I'm not a fan of the looks and think most of the technology onboard is a gimmick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 In a sense, if you have a guitar with a pickup, it's a tech gimmick. That's how a lotta guitar players in the late 30s through the 50s felt about it. Then... as amps improved, some would go along with a pickup on a "real" guitar, but certainly not those boards with strings. I've never played an X. I've never seen one in captivity. But I think the idea of a relatively light guitar with a nice neck and a number of sound options is pretty good. As to two pickups and four knobs... I still don't understand why there's no fifth knob as a master volume. I'm utterly convinced there should be. I think you spend your money and take your choice. Most of my guitars are more or less Gibson designs regardless of maker, excluding the two early AE Ovations from the early 1970s. Playability is my major "thing," followed by sound potentials. But in ways I think the "argh, it's ugly" thing isn't valid. What IS valid to me is that we pickers in general have a tendency to associate certain guitar types with certain sorts of music that we like or don't care for. L5 Larry has his gorgeous archtop, for example. I think we all have a bit of envy that were we to have his skills and gigs, that guitar is perfect for the job. In my saloon band days I swapped far too many good to great guitars IMHO simply because they didn't seem to have the look for what I was playing, not because they didn't play well or even sound good for whatever style with a bit of amp resetting. I think "we" have a bad habit of that perspective to our detriment as musicians. And I'm pointing at myself as much or more than anyone else. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 ...we pickers in general have a tendency to associate certain guitar types with certain sorts of music that we like or don't care for....... I swapped far too many good to great guitars IMHO simply because they didn't seem to have the look for what I was playing, not because they didn't play well or even sound good for whatever style with a bit of amp resetting... +1. The Les Paul is a perfect example of this. There are some jazz guitarists who play one but their number is dwarfed by those who play all styles of 'Rock'. Going in the opposite direction, of course, is Ted Nugent with his 40-odd year love affair with the Byrdland. P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SG FAN Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Dig some of the features, really don't care for the looks, would take one if someone gave it to me. Buy it for the price of a Custom shop SG? Nah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j-dub Posted September 30, 2011 Author Share Posted September 30, 2011 milod does it again i wonder if the reception would have been less harsh if they did this in the les paul config? after all, it is as close to perfection as it gets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j-dub Posted September 30, 2011 Author Share Posted September 30, 2011 They are on Ebay already... buyer beware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shnate McDuanus Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 I'm just extremely curious about what one means when they say it's not a "real" guitar. That just seems stupid to me. I mean, it has all the characteristics that every other electric guitar has, with other features in addition to those characteristics. I don't see how adding features disqualifies it as a guitar. Now, if they made it stringless, for instance...that wouldn't be a guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FirstMeasure Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 If you plug it into an amplifier it doesn't work. Making it an interface for the support program, not really a "Guitar". Granted, "not a real guitar" may be an inaccurate colloquialism, but it does reflect the uselessness of the Firebird X when not coupled with a computer and it's very necessary peripherals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilpanda Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 cool idea, bad execution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damian Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 It's been delayed so long it runs only on Windows Vista...... ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shnate McDuanus Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 If you plug it into an amplifier it doesn't work. Making it an interface for the support program, not really a "Guitar". Granted, "not a real guitar" may be an inaccurate colloquialism, but it does reflect the uselessness of the Firebird X when not coupled with a computer and it's very necessary peripherals. Dude, that's completely wrong. You can plug it into a regular amplifier. It has an ordinary 1/4" input jack. I don't know where you read that it can't be plugged into an amplifier, but that's wrong. Also, an acoustic guitar without a pickup can't be plugged into an amp, either. Does that make my dad's Martin "not a guitar" because it doesn't have any way of plugging into an amplifier? I'm not buying your reasoning. Give it to me again as to why a Firebird X isn't a real guitar, and make claims that are actually true this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FirstMeasure Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 Dude, that's completely wrong. You can plug it into a regular amplifier. It has an ordinary 1/4" input jack. I don't know where you read that it can't be plugged into an amplifier, but that's wrong. Also, an acoustic guitar without a pickup can't be plugged into an amp, either. Does that make my dad's Martin "not a guitar" because it doesn't have any way of plugging into an amplifier? I'm not buying your reasoning. Give it to me again as to why a Firebird X isn't a real guitar, and make claims that are actually true this time. First, look up "colloquialism". Now, unless I misunderstood the 10 minute video review of this Computer Interface you need the "Stuff" that's between the Guitar and the Amp or the Firebird X doesn't work. Just for you , I'll clear this up. It's a Guitar, but naysayers are being mean to the guitar because they don't like it. They don't like it because it doesn't do anything "Better" than any guitar and effects possessor already on the market. You could buy a Lap Top, Les Paul, and Pro Tool for the price of the Firebird X, get better results in the studio and have some money left over for blank CD's. And your Acoustic Guitar analogy doesn't float. While there were Naysayer "Bad Talking" the electric guitar when it first came out, there was a slew of Yeasayers (opposite of naysayer) reminding the Naysayer that Acoustic Guitars couldn't be heard over a drum set, and successfully micing an acoustic guitar is a challenge to this day. You see, Necessity was the Mother of Invention when it came to the Electric Guitar, as well as the Solid Body Electric Guitar. If necessity is not the mother of invention, you've probably invented a toy. That's not to say you've made something out of plastic and marketed to a child, but you've invented something that will be toyed with for a time, then neglected in favor of existing Tools that already do the Job as good or better than the New Toy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damian Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 My "Hurdy Gurdy" works just fine.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 I guess I keep remembering how those new boards with strings were badmouthed by those who played "real" guitars - although they'd admit that an archtop was sort of a real guitar that was ugli-fied by those chrome or black rectangles that messed up the better quality sound. Yup, a lotta folks said that sorta thing clear into the 60s and beyond. Even in the '70s you'd be surprised at how many flattop pickers considered especially the solidbodies to be imitation guitars they'd never consider owning or playing. It has been an evolution not only in instruments, but also in our attitudes, I think. Functionally a full acoustic guitar is a complete instrument. A solidbody electric guitar is half of an instrument that requires an amp as much as it requires stings. Various sorts of semis, archtops and AE guitars are somewhere between being a full down to half of a complete instrument for performance. As an owner of a number of electric guitar variations, I'm not making a value judgment here, but simply stating fact. You can do various gigs without amplification with a classical or acoustic steel string; you can't with a Tele or SG. The classical guitar concert or unamplified bluegrass band may not be your schtick, but it works. Amps in the 1950s into the 1960s weren't all that much, regardless that "the tube sound" is so venerated today. It's venerated because overdrive came into being because we hadda push tube amps into overdrive simply to be loud enough to meet expectations of rock and electric country of the early electric days. Those of us who rely on various stomp boxes and such for a specific sound are simply adding a third element into what constitutes "their" instrument. Again, I ain't against using 'em - I get good use from a multi-effect gadget that's virtually hardwired into my small gig amp. It's just that it's no longer even a matter of guitar and amp being the "whole instrument," the stomp box has taken the guitar into a lesser percentage of the totality that gives a certain sound. So I guess my feeling on the "enhanced electronic capability" guitar, from Variax to the Firebird X, is that it is what it is. I kinda like the idea of a piezo setup that lets each string be individually modified rather than what you can modify from a mag pickup. What the heck, look at the arguments over what's best to add some sort of amplification device on a flattop. So... Yeah, I'd say the X is as much a guitar as a Tele or SG that never is played unless it has the pickup electrical impulse run through one or more effect boxes and then an amplifier. The X has the advantage of multiple modes of achieving different sounds when its pickups are run through an amp. One of my AE guitars is somewhat similar in that it has an under saddle piezo and mag pickup that can be blended. When I play it purely acoustically, it's a whole instrument; the minute I plug in a cord, it's half an instrument that relies on a lotta electronic stuff. The X is a different song, but really, it's the same theme to achieve variations of sound out of an amp. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 LOL....it's just "Butt Ugly!" That's all, end of story! Seriously, The Technology is fine, if you like/love those features. Gibson has such beautiful (other) designs, why not incorporate all this "tech" into one of them? Instead, they've come up, with an aesthetic, that most (here, anyway) seem to loath! Make one less "Signature" Les Paul, or SG, and put the tech, in one of those, or a REAL "Firebird!" Maybe, the "Feds" ought to arrest the design team?! CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 CB... Once upon a time there was a hollow LP shape... complete to F holes. I think a lotta electronics could fit into one and maybe it wouldn't have the horrid neck dive I remember from trying one I looked at on a used guitar rack. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shnate McDuanus Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 First, look up "colloquialism". Now, unless I misunderstood the 10 minute video review of this Computer Interface you need the "Stuff" that's between the Guitar and the Amp or the Firebird X doesn't work. Just for you , I'll clear this up. It's a Guitar, but naysayers are being mean to the guitar because they don't like it. They don't like it because it doesn't do anything "Better" than any guitar and effects possessor already on the market. You could buy a Lap Top, Les Paul, and Pro Tool for the price of the Firebird X, get better results in the studio and have some money left over for blank CD's. And your Acoustic Guitar analogy doesn't float. While there were Naysayer "Bad Talking" the electric guitar when it first came out, there was a slew of Yeasayers (opposite of naysayer) reminding the Naysayer that Acoustic Guitars couldn't be heard over a drum set, and successfully micing an acoustic guitar is a challenge to this day. You see, Necessity was the Mother of Invention when it came to the Electric Guitar, as well as the Solid Body Electric Guitar. If necessity is not the mother of invention, you've probably invented a toy. That's not to say you've made something out of plastic and marketed to a child, but you've invented something that will be toyed with for a time, then neglected in favor of existing Tools that already do the Job as good or better than the New Toy. I fxcking hate you, you goddamn pretentious condescending cxnt. I know what colloquialism means and I understand why people don't consider it a real guitar. I just think it's fxcking stupid. I'm amazed that you've lived this long with how much of an unrepentant ******bag you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duende Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 By the way, just following on from First Measure and Demon's debate, the guitar in general has had a hard time getting recognised as a 'real' instrument. Until Segovia re introduced the Classical/Spanish Guitar as a classical concert instrument in the first part of the 20th century, for a long while it had been demoted to just being an accompaniment instrument - i.e good for just strumming chords and supporting other instrumentalists! It was Segovia's love of the classical repertoire written for the guitar, (plus his bull headed single mindedness) that put it back in the public eye. Ironically given Spain being his homeland, he despised flamenco and seeing the guitar struck so hard with the right hand LOL. I have always found that funny In Europe the music conservatoires since about c.1880 have offered tuition in most orchestral instruments, but again, the guitar wasn't recognised I don't think till about the 1960's. There was certainly no course for guys like John Williams and Julian Bream. My point I suppose is all genres of guitar music as well as the types of guitars, have always had to fight to get established. http://plum.cream.org/williams/biography.htm Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FirstMeasure Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 I fxcking hate you, you goddamn pretentious condescending cxnt. I know what colloquialism means and I understand why people don't consider it a real guitar. I just think it's fxcking stupid. I'm amazed that you've lived this long with how much of an unrepentant ******bag you are. Kinda like lookin' in a Mirror, 'eh bud? If you knew why did you ask me to explain it to you Last word, I'm unrepentant because I'm right, and I'm still alive because I Rock Harder Than You Do! (How's that for pretentious?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Notes_Norton Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 I'm impressed with the technology but: I'd wait until the next edition -- experience tells me not to get version 1.0 of anything I don't like the looks at all - Didn't like the Firebird with the original headstock, and to my eyes it looks even worse with the new one But that's me personally. YMMV. Notes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveinspain Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 I had to vote no only because I don't like Firebirds... I love the new technology though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silenced Fred Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 I don't think anyone is saying it really isn't a guitar (by standard definition it is) However, it sucks. The guitar is the ugliest thing I have ever seen, and that finish is just the cherry on top that in case you had any doubt it was the ugliest thing ever, it assures that. The technology is stupid. If you go buy a standard Gibson for 2 grand, then that means you have another two thousand dollars to buy effects with so you could match the "potential" of the X. Are you kidding me? Do you guys know what kind, both quality and quantity, of effects you can buy with 2 grand? If you are content with digital effects, get a Line 6 top of the line modeler for like 600 or something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.