Gibson Firebird X

psyx · 2011-11-08T17:53:52+00:00

I'm sure most of you guys have heard about this guitar and it was discussed briefly some time ago in another topic: http://www.guitarforum.co.za/general-disc...

Gibson Firebird X

Sean

Oh my greatness, where's the tone switch? Heard a lot stuff about the guitar, never actually listened to it. It's quite awful ??? That acoustic mode is terrible ?

AlanRatcliffe

There's a reason that even die-hard Gibson fans were calling the original the "Failbird X" within a few days of the announcement. And they kept on with the development of the thing?

I love the way the big G keeps on fixing "problems" we didn't know we had (like tuning).

"analog sourced modelling" - I think he means "EQ'd to sound something like..." ?

singemonkey

The Flying V analogy is appealing, but it is false. The V was a very beautiful piece of design, but it was initially rejected because it was a weird looking guitar. People went, "guitars just don't look like that. It's ridiculous." But as an object it was always very pretty. That won out in the end, and many of us can see the appeal of the V even for playing quite traditional music (although I've yet to see a jazz player brave enough to play one ? )

The Failbird X, on the other hand, is an ugly object, as well as being an absurd guitar. It is over-designed. Crap all over it. Frills and knick-knacks - pure kitsch. No one could accuse the original Korina V of over design. It was pure simplicity.

psyx

singemonkey wrote: The Flying V analogy is appealing, but it is false. The V was a very beautiful piece of design, but it was initially rejected because it was a weird looking guitar. People went, "guitars just don't look like that. It's ridiculous." But as an object it was always very pretty. That won out in the end, and many of us can see the appeal of the V even for playing quite traditional music (although I've yet to see a jazz player brave enough to play one ? )

The Failbird X, on the other hand, is an ugly object, as well as being an absurd guitar. It is over-designed. Crap all over it. Frills and knick-knacks - pure kitsch. No one could accuse the original Korina V of over design. It was pure simplicity.

I agree... I just didn't want to sound single-minded :?
Just opening up the topic for debate... but it seems as though there's not alot counting in it's favor...

theantirockstar

honestly, the Line 6 James Tyler Variax, sounds better and is alot cheaper!

http://tylervariax.com/

BluJu

Seems a bit unnecessary to me.

EttieneB

....................i dont get it.................

psyx

EttieneB wrote: ....................i dont get it.................

Neither do I! Most of the Gibson fans don't even get it.
At the launch event of this guitar , the CEO Henry Juszkiewicz apparently smashed a Gibson SG to say that the Firebird X is here to replace all previous Gibson guitars

Jack-Flash-Jr

psyx wrote:
EttieneB wrote: ....................i dont get it.................
Neither do I! Most of the Gibson fans don't even get it.
At the launch event of this guitar , the CEO Henry Juszkiewicz apparently smashed a Gibson SG to say that the Firebird X is here to replace all previous Gibson guitars

Which illustrates that Gibson doesn't get it.

All this not getting it going around I don't think the buying public is going to shell out to "get it" either...

singemonkey

Jack Flash Jr wrote:
All this not getting it going around I don't think the buying public is going to shell out to "get it" either...

They'll release it in very small numbers. They'll all sell. Gibson will call it a success.

Bob-Dubery

I think the way to view this guitar is as a trail blazing experiment. Taken in isolation it may not be a great success (or it may just be too different for a bunch of people who are far more conservative than they care to admit when it comes to gear) and/or it may be crazy expensive, but perhaps the point is to get that technology out in the field where it can be tried and tested and evaluated.

An analogy might be some of the "green" motor vehicles that hit the market a few years back. They were so expensive that they didn't make a lot of sense to the person in the street. The VW "bluemotion" Polo was more expensive and TOTAL cost of running it was higher than for most regular models in the Polo range. But what we are seeing now is technology pioneered on those vehicles filtering down into the mainstream - debugged and lower priced.

So maybe Gibson were prepared to have a failure if it meant that they learned things and could refine their technology.

I'm not sure why there's so much vituperation aimed at the Firebird X and not at the "computerised" (my term) Stratocaster that was joint developed by Fender and Roland. Certainly the tuning scheme used on the Firedbird X seems a better option to me because it actually tunes the strings rather than having the electronics adjust the pitch and feed the "adjusted" note to the output.

To be fair I'd put that "smart" (my term) Strat in the same category - it's not supposed to be perfect in the first iteration.

[deleted]

hahahahaha

Just go to 7:18 and listen to how grose he makes Sunshine of your love sound

singemonkey

Bob. 2 things:

1. Aesthetics. This is a truly hideous guitar from a maker that made some of the most elegant guitars in history. The current administration has shown it's tastelessness already with such over the top guitars as the Les Paul Supreme and the Darkfire. But this one is truly shockingly grotesque.

2. Execution. The technology is implemented in the most ham-fisted, amateurish way. Compare, as someone pointed out, to the Variaxe. While I may not be a fan, it's a simple, clean design. It's not 100 fiddly little levers, knobs, and flashing lights. Take the Steinberger. Again, the implementation was clean. Thoughtfully laid out.

This guitar has all the hallmarks of technology implemented by people who have no freaking clue what they're doing.

Bob-Dubery

singemonkey wrote: 1. Aesthetics. This is a truly hideous guitar from a maker that made some of the most elegant guitars in history. The current administration has shown it's tastelessness already with such over the top guitars as the Les Paul Supreme and the Darkfire. But this one is truly shockingly grotesque.

Have some respect! The top finish (which brings to my mind a toned-down bowling ball Fender) is inspired by the appearance of the Gibson factory floor after the 2010 floods.

Y'all have no respect for legend and tradition. THAT is the problem.

More seriously, I think there's an important aspect about the technology that is being overlooked. Gibson are trying to make it small so that it can be ported to other guitars. With the Variax if you want the technology you MUST buy a Variax and hope you like it. The Gibson approach is to have a small module that can be ported to other guitars. So you could have a "Les Paul X" or a "335 X". You could, as far as I can see, use this with a Bigsby so you can have a whammy if you want one. Gibson are clearly aiming to tie you to a technology, not a technology AND a particular guitar.

The comparison with Variax only goes so far.

Malkav

The Failbird is just an abortion to guitar design, at least the Fender/Roland abomination worked pretty damn well and sounded half way decent...

I just can't imagine why they would go through so much effort to put what sound like early Zoom quality effects in a $5k guitar. This thing reminds me of those horrible Alesis guitars, but at least the Alesis ones didn't look like s***.

AlanRatcliffe

Go on Bob, call me conservative. ? No, this guitar fails on many levels:

#1 - It's UGLY. No aesthetics at all. Clashing combinations. I can look at an original Firebird, Explorer or V and, while it's not my kind of thing, I can see the attraction. Not so with this Frankenstein's monster of a guitar. They didn't even keep the through neck of the original Firebird, which is one of its best features. Mismatched knobs and a finish "inspired by a natural disaster" (how fitting).

#2 - It's overly complex (I know, coming from me...) an 11-way selector switch? There is a reason the three way toggles and 5-way selectors are still standard - they are easy to use in the heat of a gig with low light or blinding lights. You have to be able to tweak on the fly and it must be above all, easy to use and reliable.

#3 - The Robot tuning. You want to improve a mechanical system, you look where you can simplify it and how to make basic physics work to your advantage. You don't complicate the hell out of it by adding servos, electronic pitch detection and computer control. That's asking for trouble and long term reliability problems (not to mention the added weight and the spares/repairs nightmare a few years from now). The Robot tuning is also known for getting the high E and B string wrong. What's wrong with using a Hipshot Trilogy bridge for multiple tunings?

#4 - Onboard FX. Tried many times in the past and almost without exception dismal failures. Guitarists want to be able to choose their own specific effects (especially dirt pedals) and the order they put them in. They also want to be able to tweak on the fly.

#5 - Expensive! $5,570.

#6 - Bluetooth?

#7 - Analog modelling? Now there is a marketing department hard at work.

#8 - It doesn't even sound good.

I could go on. And on. And on... But in short, What's new is not good, what little is good is not new.

Fender/Roland took existing, proven technology (A Stratocaster and V-Guitar guitar modelling) and combined them. No FX, simple to use. It could still be plugged into a normal amp with a normal cable and work like a normal Strat. It still didn't sell (OK, would have helped if they had a US-made version and if a set of alkaline batteries lasted more than two hours). Line 6 did a damn good job on the sound and functionality of the Variax (but fell down a bit on the quality of the guitar itself) - they didn't sell either.

Jack-Flash-Jr

Bluetooth :roflmao:

Zulublues

Bob, two things'

1. Aesthetics:- It has none.

2. Execution:- The design team should be a victim thereof !

Some things cannot be improved and some things should not be "improved". (Someone forgot to tell the Marketing Dept.)

Bob-Dubery

Zulublues wrote: Bob, two things'

1. Aesthetics:- It has none.

I must be honest, I don't think it's that bad. Not great, true, but not that bad. Better than that mostly hollow Explorer thing they released a while back (which may not be saying much. I used to have a metallic bright blue Ibanez, with gold hardware (something to which I am deeply allergic), but it played and sounded pretty good so I forgave it.

2. Execution:- The design team should be a victim thereof !

Some things cannot be improved and some things should not be "improved". (Someone forgot to tell the Marketing Dept.)

Should not? See, for me this is like Metallica and Lou Reed, sometimes we resist experimentation and new ideas just because they're different. I don't think the Firebird X is a success (though I've read some reviews that suggest that it's very much a question of mindset, and it may work very well for some folks), but I don't think that this kind of development should not occur and I don't believe that the Firebird X is an out-and-out waste of Gibson's time. I expect that in the future we will see features derived from that guitar finding their way into more models in the Gibson range.

Sean

X-rated Bob wrote: ...I don't believe that the Firebird X is an out-and-out waste of Gibson's time. I expect that in the future we will see features derived from that guitar finding their way into more models in the Gibson range.

Like those ghastly concept cars at motor shows ? The next generation of cars from the manufacturer has subtle, watered down features from it. You have a point Bob, but I still see a long way for cars to go, whereas the basics of the electric guitar has not changed in 50 years. Guitarists still want EXACT replicas of 50's and 60's guitars. I don't meet many people wanting their new car to feel, look and handle like a 50's Oldsmobile ?