• 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.

The difference between an average player and monster chops...

Status
Not open for further replies.
BassHappy

BassHappy

Supporting Member
Apr 3, 2009
7,652
12,264
Kent Lakes, New York via Fort Wayne, Indiana
www.innertainment.net
#1
Frankly, I never grow tired of this discussion, and I hope a few of you feel the same and are willing to chime in.

My contention from my experience is that your chops and overall playing ability can actually be determined - at least in part - by the scale of bass you play. Not to be controversial - well yes, actually to be controversial - how many of you long scalers have played and actually spent some time woodshedding with a QUALITY medium scale bass? I don't mean just in a music store, where it's rare to find one and when you do the set up and strings are much less than ideal, and of course, not customized for you.

Most of you picked up a short scale in a music store back in your early formative bass days and made a quick evaluation about the sound or the "floppy" E string or how it just wasn't a fit. Or maybe it simply wasn't cool to play a short scale bass. Short scales for the most part - just simply don't feel good to me either.

So then you made an unfair and ridiculous assumption that all non 34" scale basses were not for you. I mean, does it really go to logic that if a 30" scale bass doesn't fit then a 32" medium scale bass won't work for you either? I think not.

I have to laugh and roll my eyes as I continually hear players on here spouting the merits to beginners of adapting and learning to get around the long scale dead spot 34" "standard" neck - even though the poster is usually very clear about their physical limitations. It's like there is some macho trophy reward in sticking with a bass that just doesn't fit you properly and on which you are constantly uncomfortable and straining. Let me tell you, I woodsheded on my long scale basses for years and years and it never got comfortable. In many cases they are looking for an alternative but are being told to keep with it - don't worry it's all about hand position and you will get better and it will get easier etc etc etc. Just keep woodshedding. Way to sell it but I think it is bad advice.

Until fairly recently medium scale production models simply were not readily available and frankly - they are still rather scarce. The lucky ones ran across one or two at one point and went WOW. The vast majority of them, after spending some time and getting the big blue bolt of realization - switch or at least add the medium scale to the arsenal. You can bet that when the CHOPS songs come up they switch to the medium scale. The only quality one that springs to mind until recent times was the original Fender Stu Hamm Urge I, of the early '90's which featured a full two octave 32" scale neck. But Fender is back into the hunt with several models and custom bass manufacturer's like BlastCult are selling medium scales which are not even OFFERED in long scale. How about that?

So here is the question - if you knew for a fact that after a few serious weeks on a QUALITY medium scale - your chops would improve 10-20% - would you consider switching? Passages you are now playing as fast as you can are suddenly faster, cleaner and have better articulation on the medium scale. I suppose you HUGE handed guys might be an exception to this - although Stanley Clarke has HUGE hands and he loves medium scales and piccolo basses as well.

Hey maybe you work in projects like blues or country that don't require any serious chops. God bless you. My band, requires a ridiculous amount of chops just to keep up. For the rest of us - you would be wise to pick up a medium scale for your own sake, AND also for the sake of your band!

So you know, the fingerboard is close to only an inch shorter, as the other inch is compensated for by the body and the bridge - and playing a medium scale bass is like having a capo on a long scale at the first fret. Photo by Fender Japan of the actual basses:

Fender%20Bass%20Comparison.png


Mythbusting - your friendly medium scale bass activist,

BassHappy
www.innertainment.net

V-Bass%20sideways.png
 
#2
I have been asked to calm down more often than I've been asked to "chop it up" so if going medium scale is solely for the sake of enabling me to zip around and play more notes, then my answer would be no. if it sounded better, then yes. I absolutely agree
that you can have a great sounding bass with a 30 or 32 inch scale


problem is there's still not a lot of selection.
 
#3
1. I don't care about the scale of the bass.
2. I don't care about chops.

I play what fits me. I'm a rather large guy and I play up high on the neck sometimes. I need those frets out and away from my body so I can preserve proper fingering position and wrist angle, because if I *do* happen to be playing fast, it will probably be up high rather than in 1st position. I don't care if 1st position is a little more cumbersome and a bit of a stretch here and there. I can still get around there far faster than I need to.
 
#4
The real problem here is that good designs are always compromises. It's virtually never the case that more or less is always better, there's typically some kind of optimum, where you have the best balance of features you're looking for.

It's that way with scale length also. It's probably offset the most by tone - the shorter you go, the more problems you have with string tension. This leads to other variables like the gauge of strings you have to use, intonation problems and so on. And going the other way - longer scale lengths - you start to run into the limitations of human hands and just generally what the electric bass was originally designed for (portability, light weight, etc).

So, you won't necessarily always be better off with a shorter scale. I do agree that the 34" scale is only a standard guideline and not an absolute, but it's also a pretty good compromise. How Leo Fender actually arrived at the 34" scale for the Fenders I'm not sure, but it's probably the best compromise out there right now.

But I also agree a shorter scale can have benefits. The Rick 4001/3 is a 33" scale, for example, and they're pretty comfortable to play (as long as you're seated anyway). 'tards who have to double on the bass sometimes seem to like the Rick and this is one of the reasons why. OTOH, I could go on and on for days about the tone.... How much of that is due to the scale length is probably debatable tho.

In my case, 34" is as low as I can really go and get a good tone. I've got mediocre technique and even less musical talent, so I need all the help I can get from the instrument to get good, solid, audible notes without too much mud or clickety-clack. For me that means no frets, a pickup in the right place near the bridge and 34" scale.

But for other players of course those limitations may not apply.

So, it's not an absolute kind of thing. It's sort of up to the individual player, in my view.

LS
 
#5
LOL bass players needing more chops.

Also, lots of great "chops" players have used extra-long, long, medium and short scale instruments, as well as very poor players, so what's your point again ?
 
#6
Yeah, I agree.

The best players I know have exquisite timing and note placement with just the right dynamics for the song. To me, THAT is "monster chops." Probably not your definition?

30 or 32-inch scale basses are like, what 10% less space between each of the frets than a 34? No big deal.


You know how to tell when someone really CAN turn straw into gold? They don't walk around doing it all day, all the time.
 
#9
I would like to own a 32" scale instrument. It just seems like most of them fall either on the low end of the quality scale or on the high end price wise. There doesn't seem to be much selection in the middle.
 
#10
M.R. Ogle said:
Yeah, I agree.

The best players I know have exquisite timing and note placement with just the right dynamics for the song. To me, THAT is "monster chops." Probably not your definition?

30 or 32-inch scale basses are like, what 10% less space between each of the frets than a 34? No big deal.


You know how to tell when someone really CAN turn straw into gold? They don't walk around doing it all day, all the time.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. A lot of people with "chops" tend to play as if they're getting paid by the note. But a lot of those guys don't seem to be able to easily play a good solid, well thought out line, in the pocket (and keeping it there), while controlling volume and playing it dynamically. Scale length doesn't have a lot to do with those kind of chops.
 
#11
Actually my first 2 basses were Hofner Beatle basses, my next bass was the EB0, and my 4th bass was a Rickenbacker that I played for many years. I didn't own or play 34" basses until 2001. Now most of my basses are that scale. I owned one 35" bass and I saw no reason to pley it over a 34" or 33".

I used to play a Gibson EB0 bass and I could easily finger riffs that were much harder on a 34" scale bass.

I find some things are easier to play on my 33 1/4" scale Ricks than on my 34" scale basses.

I do have an Ibanez Mikro that I bought for my daughter. It is about a 28" scale or something. It is actually very easy to play. At first the scale made it hard to play, but after 15 minutes my hands adjusted and it was great. My problem with the Mikro basses is they are "entry level quality" and I prefer a bass to be a better build quality.
 
#12
Thanks for chiming in so far - really some great points being made...

I suppose this thread wouldn't really apply much to the big football size guys, who probably consider the long scale neck to be cramped already.

:D

Was really pointing at those who have size limitations with their hands, which of course, isn't everybody.

The added benefits can also be, an increase in stamina, less fatigue and less repetitive stress for those with undersized hands.

As far as tone goes, it is really funny to me how all these long scale players who have never LISTENED or really PLAYED or even been around a quality medium scale bass - have all these predetermined notions about the way they sound. It's like they know and have heard for their own ears, which of course in most cases they haven't. They are just perpetuating the myth. For general information I use standard long scale strings in standard gauges on all dozen of my medium scales - by D'Adarrio, Labella, Rotosound, Fender and DR. There are of course, no issues with intonation or string gauge - all sound fabulous once set up professionally. Another myth clearly defined and perpetuated - although I am sure ALL of those issues may very well apply to short scales.

If anyone cares, my medium scale Fender Jazz went note for note in the studio with a full scale Fender Jazz through the exact same signal path, with the exact same strings, exact same pickup settings, standard Fender pick ups. Guess what? In the blindfold test no one in the room could tell which was which. It is that close.

Pluck away,

BassHappy
www.innertainment.net
 
#13
I've played everything from 30.75" (Alembic Stanley Clarke Signature, Alembic Series I) to
32" (Alembic Spoiler, Alembic Series II) to
34" (Fender J & P, Music Man Bongo & Sabre, Alembic Series I & II, Hanewinckel, Marchlewski) to
35" (Roscoe LG3005, Devon Diamond J5, Lakland 55-02)

The stuff in RED is what I still own.

Notice....no short scales or medium scales left in my portfolio. It's not that there is anything wrong with short or medium scale. It's simply that they are no better / worse in terms of tone and playability than the 34" basses I've played over the years.

There was a time when my entire bass portfolio was 32" or less (all were Alembics), so I'm clearly familiar with the range and potential of less than long scale instruments. It worked for me because I had great instruments. Now I'm at a point where none of my instruments is shorter than 34". Again, great instruments.

At the end of the day, scale length does not (IMHO) define the instrument. There is no inherent magic in short or medium scale nor any particular evil imbedded in 34" and 35" scale. Once I decide I like / want an instrument, scale length is a result, not a reason for purchase. I imagine that is probably the case for most bassists. I know working bassists who can play circles around me and have impressive discographies who can't tell you in inches what the scale length of their bass is. "Whatever <_____> basses normally come in." is the typical response.

If ordering new, I might consider alternative scale lengths. Of the 6 basses I have now, three were custom specced. Two are 34", one is 35". In all cases, that was the "standard" scale length for the model, with other lengths optional. I chose to stay standard each time.

BassHappy said:
....I suppose you HUGE handed guys might be an exception to this - although Stanley Clarke has HUGE hands and he loves medium scales and piccolo basses as well.
...
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure Stanley Clarke pays mainly short scale basses, not medium scale. The Alembic Stanley Clarke Signature model is a 30.75" scale bass based very roughly on Stanley's favorite small bodied basses, which are short scale, unless something has changed recently. He also has some 34" scale basses (Alembic, Lowenhertz, Ken Smith) and medium scale basses (Carl Thompson) in his stash, but mainly plays short scale.
 
#14
The difference between an average player and monster chops is the scale of the instrument? What?

I would suggest the difference is the dedication and practice put into the instrument.

Going with your hypothetical though, if playing a medium scale instrument was somehow proven to improve playing by "10-20%" then, yes, I'd switch.

I think common sense dictates that this is not the case. If playing a smaller scale bass produced superior players, then everyone would be clamouring for a smaller scale, and manufacturers would be providing them as the norm rather than the exception.
 
#15
Scale length means nothing as far as ability to play fast. You just like them better so you feel more free on them. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not a universal reaction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back