• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Fender - Classic Player Rascal Bass

#61
RedHotFuzz said:
I hadn't thought of this at first glance, but you're right - why bother with a short scale if you have to extend your arm to a full scale reach anyway? :(
Click to expand...

I guess it's a matter of whether or not that cup is half empty or half full. I'm used to regular scale basses. If what you're stating is accurate then I'll be able to get the sound and string feel of a short scale, while still having the ergonomics of a standard size bass, which I'm used to.
 
#62
Joe Nerve said:
I guess it's a matter of whether or not that cup is half empty or half full. I'm used to regular scale basses. If what you're stating is accurate then I'll be able to get the sound and string feel of a short scale, while still having the ergonomics of a standard size bass, which I'm used to.
Click to expand...

Actually, (at least for me) that's the problem with basses like this, is the nut is in the "right place" (relative to a long scale) but the frets aren't for where I'm used to when my arm is way out there. On the other hand, one a true short scale, the frets are more or less in the right place for the angle of my arm.

To be fair, the adjustment takes about 3 songs to feel normal when actually playing, but on the sofa, it's "weird".
 
#65
Joe Nerve said:
I guess it's a matter of whether or not that cup is half empty or half full. I'm used to regular scale basses. If what you're stating is accurate then I'll be able to get the sound and string feel of a short scale, while still having the ergonomics of a standard size bass, which I'm used to.
Click to expand...

Interesting perspective that I hadn't seen before. From my own experience and what I typically hear from others is the appeal of the short scale bass is the better ergonomics, with the sound/string feel being the perceived downside that must be dealt with.

danosix said:
More to the point, for those who actually need a short scale for length, this is kinda the worst of all worlds.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I'm now realizing that. What a shame - I really dig the look of this bass. But I've determined (through trial and error) that I'm just not a long scale guy. And ultimately that's what this bass is from an ergonomics perspective.
 
#66
I don't think the Rascal compares unfavorably to the VI in terms of size or reach. I put together a montage of Squier VI and Rascal photos below showing them compared in various ways. The pictures are taken directly from the Fender website and are scaled so the nut to bridge distances match. As usually happens when I do this the intermediate fret positions don't match well, I don't know if that is due to distortion in the camera lens or not but I was careful to scale the height and width by the same factor so the pictures are as good as I can make from the source material. The top two are positioned so that the nuts line up, the next one shows the Rascal overlaid on the VI with the ends lined up and some cutouts in the Rascal picture to show where features on the VI lie below. The bottom is top half Rascal, bottom half VI with the nuts lined up again. I think the Rascal is going to do what you expect a short scale bass to do but as always one short scale will fit you better than others due to detailed differences in geometry and personal preferences.

Rascal_Compare.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: rshack, ProdigalBassman, LowBass4me and 3 others
#67
Orangeclawhammr said:
I currently own a Squier SS Jag, which I like, but wish it had a bigger or maybe heavier body for better balance. My issue with long scale basses is the stretch between frets. I have long arms for a short guy. I wear a 35" sleeve, which is normal for a man who is 6' 4". I stand 5' 7". so the arm reach is not a problem.

Yes, I do have to bend over to tie my shoes.
Click to expand...
The SS Jag doesn't need a bigger body to balance. It would balance correctly if they stopped putting a pound of tuner on it. And if they didn't need a standard sized Fender tuner on it, the headstock could probably be smaller, too, which would once again help with weight balance.

Bass isn't a terribly unique instrument. Almost every Fender guitar balances perfectly with almost the same body shapes as their basses. The only real difference is that the headstock and tuners are disproportionately large and heavy on their basses when compared to their guitars. And big surprise, most Fenders in my experience feel at least a bit neck heavy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrLenny, Orangeclawhammr and Jables
#68
khutch said:
I don't think the Rascal compares unfavorably to the VI in terms of size or reach. I put together a montage of Squier VI and Rascal photos below showing them compared in various ways. The pictures are taken directly from the Fender website and are scaled so the nut to bridge distances match. As usually happens when I do this the intermediate fret positions don't match well, I don't know if that is due to distortion in the camera lens or not but I was careful to scale the height and width by the same factor so the pictures are as good as I can make from the source material. The top two are positioned so that the nuts line up, the next one shows the Rascal overlaid on the VI with the ends lined up and some cutouts in the Rascal picture to show where features on the VI lie below. The bottom is top half Rascal, bottom half VI with the nuts lined up again. I think the Rascal is going to do what you expect a short scale bass to do but as always one short scale will fit you better than others due to detailed differences in geometry and personal preferences.

View attachment 478859
Click to expand...

No, you're right, the reach for both of those should be identical - as people have said elsewhere, this should have been called the Bass IV as it's a VI converted to a "true" bass. It's just that relative to a more conventional short scale - mustang, EB0, Longhorn - the neck starts WAY over there as the bridge is in more of a "guitar" position (closer to middle of guitar instead of near the tail).
 
#69
Incidentally - I'm seriously JONESING for this, I just love to nit-pick. Talking about how something needs to be fixed is part of the mental process for people like me. I know I'm gonna love it as is, but I'll love it even more once I've tweaked it to my needs and tastes.

Just like Fraser what I like best is and otherwise "exquisite <bass> with one tiny flaw<I> can pick at all night..."
 
#70
danosix said:
Incidentally - I'm seriously JONESING for this, I just love to nit-pick. Talking about how something needs to be fixed is part of the mental process for people like me. I know I'm gonna love it as is, but I'll love it even more once I've tweaked it to my needs and tastes.

Just like Fraser what I like best is and otherwise "exquisite <bass> with one tiny flaw<I> can pick at all night..."
Click to expand...
Same here. As I said, I like this bass. I'm just a bit annoyed that it could have been smaller. And with the bridge further back, the upper horn could have probably reached 12th fret or further, which would also enhance playability. The bridge position made sense on the VI. The vibrato required it. On here, it doesn't. We would have lost nothing by losing 2-3 inches there and gotten a more portable instrument to boot.

What's nice, though, is that since it's in a guitar format, I'd be able to keep my elbow on the forearm contour all night, as though I were playing guitar. This does wonders for establishing neck angle, since it keeps the bass from slipping and helping with neck dive. Although this could bother some players depending on their right hand technique, it wouldn't bother me because I either play with a pick or with a floating thumb, so I can keep my elbow on the forearm contour without affecting how I play. It's great for palm muted playing and thumb playing as well.

Since we're in the business of nitpicking, if they were going to make a full length instrument, I wish they used a bridge setup with more string length behind the saddles. Then, we would not only gain superb 3rd bridge capabilities and a unique sound to the instrument, we could use full scale strings, too. Then, you could actually justify the bridge positioning a bit more, too, as it would actually contribute to tone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarkoYYZ
#71
Now to the other side of the equation. The "guitar-y" position of the bridge also makes palm-muted picked lines way easier. This is the main reason that the 6 string bass and bass VI remained the standard for tic-tack bass rather than any old short scale with light strings.
 
#72
So, compare the Rascal to a Mustang and a Jazz Bass:

Rascal_Compare2.png




The Mustang definitely is smaller, it was designed with children in mind after all. It is 2.5 frets (and I do realize that is an unusual unit of measure but appropriate in this case) shorter than a Jazz and 1.5 shorter than the Rascal. The Rascal is still a fret shorter than a Jazz and half a fret shorter than a VI which already feels noticeably shorter to a long scale player like me even though the difference between it and a Jazz is only about a third of fret. So as I said it does give you what you expect from a short scale even if the details vary from other short scales. If it isn't as short as a Mustang that is partly because it is styled like the other members of the Jazzmaster family and partly to keep the 21 fret neck which I personally find to be an excellent reason to compromise. I get it that it isn't as compact as a Mustang and that this is important to some of us. But I like it. I am more interested in the short scale's smaller distance between frets than its shorter overall reach. And I have just never liked the look of a Mustang or Bronco where I like the VI and Rascal and since the layout contributes quite a bit to that I have to say that it works quite well for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KeithPoker and Jables
#73
khutch said:
So, compare the Rascal to a Mustang and a Jazz Bass:

View attachment 478914



The Mustang definitely is smaller, it was designed with children in mind after all. It is 2.5 frets (and I do realize that is an unusual unit of measure but appropriate in this case) shorter than a Jazz and 1.5 shorter than the Rascal. The Rascal is still a fret shorter than a Jazz and half a fret shorter than a VI which already feels noticeably shorter to a long scale player like me even though the difference between it and a Jazz is only about a third of fret. So as I said it does give you what you expect from a short scale even if the details vary from other short scales. If it isn't as short as a Mustang that is partly because it is styled like the other members of the Jazzmaster family and partly to keep the 21 fret neck which I personally find to be an excellent reason to compromise. I get it that it isn't as compact as a Mustang and that this is important to some of us. But I like it. I am more interested in the short scale's smaller distance between frets than its shorter overall reach. And I have just never liked the look of a Mustang or Bronco where I like the VI and Rascal and since the layout contributes quite a bit to that I have to say that it works quite well for me.
Click to expand...
One thing to note is bridge position. The bridge on the Mustang is pushed further into the body than the Bass VI or Rascal. So, it feels smaller without being smaller. It's kind of the same thing that happens when I pick up my T-bird & compare it to my P-bass. The T-bird feels like it's bigger but the scale's the same. The bridge just isn't located at the bottom of the body like on the P-bass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KeithPoker
#74
RedHotFuzz said:
It does seem quite...portly. I think my hopes of a lightweight Rascal will be for naught. Back to Warmoth I guess.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry it looks like it's not going to work out for you. :( I want to try one out in person before my ultimate decision, but I'm close to writing it off already because A) it doesn't have a jazz neck (specs say it's a 1.625 nut width) and B) it might be heavy. I like light, thin-necked basses (my Gretsch being a slight exception on the neck front), so those are pretty big issues to me.

I went to Warmoth to see if I could put a short scale neck on a Bass VI body (essentially creating my own Rascal-clone), but the Bass VI body only fits Bass VI necks...no bueno. I wish Warmoth offered a short scale Jag body, that I could work with.
 
#76
verycoolname said:
I'm sorry it looks like it's not going to work out for you. :( I want to try one out in person before my ultimate decision, but I'm close to writing it off already because A) it doesn't have a jazz neck (specs say it's a 1.625 nut width) and B) it might be heavy. I like light, thin-necked basses (my Gretsch being a slight exception on the neck front), so those are pretty big issues to me.

I went to Warmoth to see if I could put a short scale neck on a Bass VI body (essentially creating my own Rascal-clone), but the Bass VI body only fits Bass VI necks...no bueno. I wish Warmoth offered a short scale Jag body, that I could work with.
Click to expand...
Get a Bass VI neck without tuner holes or a nut.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back