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

[Pacman]

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.

As proven already in this thread, this is an absolutely ridiculous statement.

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?

How do you quantify this? What is 10% "better chops?"

Passages you are now playing as fast as you can are suddenly faster, cleaner and have better articulation on the medium scale.

Articulation is a plucking hand issue, the idea that scale has anything to do with it is ridiculous.

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!

Maybe you'd be better off emailing Jimmy Haslip, Victor Wooten, Dave LaRue and guys like that individually, since their touring schedules probably prevent them from hanging out at TB too much. I'm sure they'll thank you for that.

I've seen some funny stuff at TB, this one comes close to taking the cake....

 

[malthumb]

..
But nobody really addressed the underlying topic, that I could see, namely:
- does a shorter scale than 34" have a real application for certain players?
- does it work?
- do good quality SS instruments exist?
- how do they perform compared to 34" + scale?
- myth or fact?

Preliminarily I'd have to say that Happy has the upper hand at the moment. If his reports are to be believed (and right now I don't see a reason not to believe them), he's played enough SS instruments to have some reasonably good answers to these questions. Eg. SS does have an application for smaller players, there are good SS instruments and they seem to perform as good as 34" scale instruments.

As I said, my only experience with shorter-then-34" scale is with the Rick 4001/3. And that bass's only good quality (for me) was the shorter scale. So my conclusion that 34" is preferable may only be a matter of availability. I dunno, but I'm willing to question that.

I'm also old, have lots of damage in the arms and ears and may eventually not be as capable on a 34" scale. Going to a SS instrument may be a reasonable course of action for me at some point.

Finally, the 34" scale is really just a standard. Leo Fender came up with it when he designed the Fender bass and it simply stuck for those legacy reasons. Research on whether that's an ideal (as opposed to simply a standard) has come later and seems to be mostly "skunkworks" projects since then. Happy has pointed a lot of these cases out.

So in my view, it looks like there's evidence that shorter-than-34"-scale can work, especially for smaller and/or injured players. Something to consider.

LS

Regarding the bold underlined stuff.....I call your attention to post #13 in this thread.... It clearly points out that there are some really good short scale and medium scale instruments. I went two or three years playing two short scales and one medium scale. As I said before, nothing wrong with short or medium scale instruments. But they are not inherently better than long scale either. If they were, I'd still have them. I sold my short / medium scale basses mainly because I was making a shift to 5-string basses. One thing short scale basses DON'T do particularly well is B-string. Not saying it can't be done, but even Alembic, my favorite bass brand by a longshot, advises that they would only build a 5-string short scale tuned EADGC.

The original point of this thread was "short scale basses enable better chops than long scale basses." That was very weird and very wrong. A valid OPINION, but totally unsupported by fact.

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.



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.

 

[carl h.]

How do you quantify this? What is 10% "better chops?"

I give the few serious weeks practicing credit for any improvement, not the changing your axe.

 

[Pacman]

I give the few serious weeks practicing credit for any improvement, not the changing your axe.

dingdingding! Give this man a prize.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

How do you quantify this? What is 10% "better chops?"

I love how he states that it is "a fact." As if he had any idea at all what works for other people. BassHappy, I have a 28" scale bass in my house. Had it for several years. Going by your silly thought process, you'd play even faster on it because of its shorter scale. I've also played Kala U-Basses and, gasp, guitars. Again, by your theory, they'd sound the same and you'd play faster. Why aren't you playing them, and not stuck on your old-world, oversized 32"?

You have found the bass with the scale and sound that work for you. That is not a quantifiable quality that can be applied to everyone. Leo Fender did the same thing when designing the Precision- he found what he thought was the shortest scale possible that still sounded and played great- and it was 34". It's going to be different for everyone, and surmising that just because going down to 32" worked for you means it's going to work for everyone is ridiculous. I have smallish hands. I am not faster on my 28" bass. I was not faster on my 33" bass, though I loved it. I am remarkably slower on a guitar, which has a much small scale, but makes my fingers bunch together uncomfortably rather than the natural finger placement I get with 33"-35" basses. It will be different for everyone.

You can't guarantee anything for anyone else- that's the only fact.

 

[BigRedBassPlayer]

I'm only 5'7" with small but fat hands and there have been 2 basses I've been able to own that fit me perfectly. My Fender P I'm currently playing and the 35" Lakland 55-02 I kick myself in the butt everyday for getting rid of it. I'm more worried about what I'm playing and staying tight than my actual chops.

 

[unclejane]

The original point of this thread was "short scale basses enable better chops than long scale basses." That was very weird and very wrong. A valid OPINION, but totally unsupported by fact.

Well supporting this would fall on Happy, ultimately. He's, of course, the one making the claim. So if this really needed pursuing, I suppose he'd have to present The Beef at some point.

But going by his reports, It sounds like it is more than simple opinion, at least among certain groups of players (those of us not well endowed, old, injured and low on talent, for instance).

I _can_ report that some things are easier on my left hand on my 4003, say, than they were on my jazz bass before I defretted it. That's a difference of 1" in scale, but some items, particularly passages that required playing down near the nut, I found easier to do on the 4003 because of the scruntched up scale.

I don't play the 4003 much because it's inaudible and has frets on it; not because it's shorter scale. And as I said before, tards seem to like the Rick when they have to double on the bass - it's more audible when played with a pick and the shorter scale is more comfy.

So I don't think the original contention is _totally_ unsupported by facts. As a sweeping generalization, I would agree with Bryan and others that, no, it's too broad of a statement. But confined to players with certain anatomical features, possibly not.

Eg. would that be true for me if, say I had access to a 33" or even 32" scale version of my L2K or modern player? It might be....

LS

 

[SquierJazz72]

I answered as I did, simply because I don't think scale relates to chops at all. Practice does.

The only way I guess you could maybe determine your premise as you initially gave it, is to take many great players, known for their "chops" have them all play on several different scales. Then average it out and see if, as a whole, they are suddenly dramatically better on the shorties. According to the way your post struck me, they should all be dramatically better as their instruments get shorter. Maybe not your intent, but that's how it came over a little.

As to the rest, there are fine short and medium scales out there. No one should close their mind, just on the opinions of others, if those interest them.

And yes, if you have limitations that require a shorter, lighter instrument with closer fret spacing, then they do, in fact, have something to offer you.

And some people simply prefer them. That's okay too.

 

[topo morto]

I am not faster on my 28" bass. I was not faster on my 33" bass, though I loved it. I am remarkably slower on a guitar, which has a much small scale, but makes my fingers bunch together uncomfortably rather than the natural finger placement I get with 33"-35" basses. It will be different for everyone.

You say you have smallish hands - do you find finger placement even up the nut end is natural on a 35" bass?

 

[bucephylus]

This is certainly a topic where you will get a variety of opinions.

Like Malthumb and some others, I also have experience with; and actually still own an Alembic SSB (though Mica has now had it for the past 6 months, which is perfectly ok).

I'll just offer this. First, each player has to define their objectives and then be clear about what they are up against. Edgar Meyer (ok, he's an upright player) is very candid and up front about analyzing each instrument in terms of its advantages and challenges. Hey, bass is actually a pretty challenging instrument!

My 2c is is that you will generally get better tone on a longer resonating string length. I mean this is important not just for selecting an instrument but for figuring out the best way to approach a given passage. For me, this means that short scale basses are a bit more difficult of an instrument to build so that they really project. Not impossible, but they require more attention to detail.

OTOH, if a player (and maybe the OP) is really focused on playing absolutely nearly impossible technical parts, then a short scale can possibly be an advantage for extended fingering etc etc. We all have to keep in mind that different players have different objectives. The instrument is a very personal choice, which we all do our best to break down into its elements and understand. Making categorical statements can be missing the point.

Here is SC on his short scale; and I have to say that his playing still blows me away.

IMO that instrument is pretty well chosen for what he is doing with it.

I pretty much do not do gigs that call for that kind of bass playing. I tend to have different needs. I am personally pretty happy with the balance of tone and playability that my 34" scale instruments provide for my bass guitar parts. But, I am mostly playing R&B, classic rock, funk, top 40 etc. If I were in some kind of progressive project, I might have to rethink the instrument.

So, no one size fits all. But it is fun to toss around what works for what here among fellow bassists.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

You say you have smallish hands - do you find finger placement even up the nut end is natural on a 35" bass?

No, which is why I prefer 34". The finger placement in the upper registers is preferable on a 35" (given the exact same reach based on using otherwise identical models), but I play lower more often, so I prefer 34".

 

[topo morto]

No, which is why I prefer 34". The finger placement in the upper registers is preferable on a 35" (given the exact same reach based on using otherwise identical models), but I play lower more often, so I prefer 34".

Could you go so far as to say that in the lower registers an even shorter scale than 34" (say 32 or 30 ) might be easier? Or is 34 the optimum for you?

It's interesting that you (and others) talk of fingering being too tight - I could never imagine the fingering on anything 30 or over being too tight! But to me, 28" - 30" spacing is natural at the nut end. Just goes to show how different people are.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

Could you go so far as to say that in the lower registers an even shorter scale than 34" (say 32 or 30 ) might be easier? Or is 34 the optimum for you?

It's interesting that you (and others) talk of fingering being too tight - I could never imagine the fingering on anything 30 or over being too tight! But to me, 28" - 30" spacing is natural at the nut end. Just goes to show how different people are.

They are probably almost as comfortable, though they get harder as I go up the neck. As I said, I do have a 28" scale bass, and used a 33" heavily for a while. Both your hand and wrist are put in different positions when playing different scale lengths- it's not just the finger-to-finger spacing, so comfort has to do with a lot of factors. A bigger concern for me near the nut is the nut width. A wide nut can make even a short scale bass uncomfortable down low. I had my fretless 6 made with a 1 7/8" nut, and it's perfect.

 

[Bass4LifeRS]

I like 32" and 33" scales. I think it's easier to move around. I do have 34" scale basses too though.

 

[BassHappy]

Hey again.....

First of all I would like to apologize to anyone out there who felt that my post was "condescending". It certainly was not my intent, but I can see in re-reading the original post how someone may think that. For that, I apologize and I accept responsibility for the fact that I have apparently driven some of you away from the post. I guess many of you can just stop here because I have offended you. It's too bad really, because I feel it has been fascinating reading all the responses, good and bad. However for those still interested - feel free to read on. In my eyes, bands like Happy the Man who cut their teeth on bands like Genesis, Gentle Giant, Yes, Van Der Graff Generator and American fusion bands like the Dregs, Mahavishnu and Weather Report are just in a different world from country and blues. My mistake and I apologize.

I started at 12 on a Kay Old Kraftsman, worked by way up to a short scale "mustang" body style Kalamazoo - then got a Gibson EB-0. I then went into the army and bought a new 1972 Fender Jazz through the PX. I used it for a couple of years, and always managed but struggled down low playing the fast passages the music in my band required. Then, we were perfecting a song from "Death's Crown" which was later released on Crafty Hands called "Open Book". The song calls for a three count sustain on each note during the verses and due to the dead spots in the neck on the Fender it completely interrupted the flow of the song - as certain notes just refused to sustain. It made the bass unusable for that tune. So, I switched to a Rickenbacker, which at the time I didn't know was a 3/4" shorter scale, but I knew it felt better and lo and behold no dead spots - but I wasn't in love with the width at the nut. I ended up using the Rick on the entire first eponymous "Happy the Man" record, except when I got the bass from Paul - Ken Scott allowed me to go back and re-record "Knee Bitten Nymphs in Limbo".

When I actually received the first bass he built for me which was 32.5" scale, it was like coming home. I could relax and play all of those really low fast passages I had struggled a bit with in a much more comfortable way. It took me 12 years, but it was over the top inspiring in a way I can't really properly describe with words - to find a bass that actually FIT me.

Ever since this life changing event, I felt a responsibility to make sure there is an awareness among players young and old, that basses can be just like anything else. There are SIZES and as expressed before, I am not a SHORT SCALE guy - I love my Rob Allen - it is great as a compositional tool and I can play it for hours and hours without fatigue, but for the most part short scale basses are too small. and just not comfortable. I played them years ago and simply outgrew them.

It was almost by mistake that I found out about medium scale in 1976, and I am hoping to put a glow in someone else's life when they finally get ahold of a world class or at least a decently constructed medium scale bass and have endured similar issues as me. I know what it can mean. It's not just short scale and long scale - there is something in between and it's rockin!

Thanks for listening....

BassHappy

 

[millsbass5]

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


A great band, and an average band.

 

[DigitalMan]

This thread reads like an argument over the best size shoes.

 

[Tom Howland]

Scale length has nothing to do with speed or chops.
it's just a personal preference.
What are chops ? A skilled musician should be able to play whatever is needed. regardless of style of music.
if your into soloing then blow like Charlie Parker.
I go to NAMM and se players with chops all day.
How many of them are giggling, working musicians?
if that's your thing then enjoy. personal growth is where it's at.
Play bass and enjoy.

 

[millsbass5]

Scale length has nothing to do with speed or chops.
it's just a personal preference.
What are chops ? A skilled musician should be able to play whatever is needed. regardless of style of music.
if your into soloing then blow like Charlie Parker.
I go to NAMM and se players with chops all day.
[How many of them are giggling, working musicians?/B]
If that's your thing, then enjoy. Personal growth is where it's at.
Play bass and enjoy.

I would think that a "giggling," working musician would have a hard time keeping work lined up.

I'm sorry. I just couldn't let this one pass me by. It's all in good fun.

 

[topo morto]

They are probably almost as comfortable, though they get harder as I go up the neck. As I said, I do have a 28" scale bass, and used a 33" heavily for a while. Both your hand and wrist are put in different positions when playing different scale lengths- it's not just the finger-to-finger spacing, so comfort has to do with a lot of factors. A bigger concern for me near the nut is the nut width. A wide nut can make even a short scale bass uncomfortable down low. I had my fretless 6 made with a 1 7/8" nut, and it's perfect.

I do a lot of messing with strap arrangements to get the neck in different positions. I often find 34" basses have the first couple of frets too far away to play fast in comfort. There's also the question of action.

I agree with the OP in that beginning players need to be aware of all the options available.