Some of the counterpoints that are being made to my statements seem to ignore rationale or history. I'm not really sure what the main argument I am trying to defend here as the statements and rebuttals become more knee-jerk and less rooted in maturity - Really guys, I don't have a secret agenda to wipe short scale basses off the planet, I love all basses, and I'm sure there are a few SS that are a joy to play. But the argument that the majority of us would somehow benefit by 'coming around' to seeing the virtues of the short scale is utterly ridiculous. For a final visit I am going to go through the thread and debunk/clarify. I won't just pick on the OP, anything I see in here that is wrong that could lead to help supporting arguments with false statements.
This one above might take the cake. You don't THINK a competent player should feel uncomfortable on a 30" ?? Do you THINK said player might not like Peas or Lima Beans? Dude, there are tons of professional & famous players who hate small basses (I'm not one of them). The only reason they might be less competent is because you are not going to play as well when you hate your instrument. And when you say cover more "musical ground' on a 30 as opposed to a 34 ---- What does that even mean ??, a completely unsubstantiated statement that makes no sense at all and if anything the opposite is true. As if I should be able to cover more musical ground on a fretless stratocaster because the frets won't be in the way ...absurd. Absolute muckery, junk music science bordering on something you might expect to hear out of a politician.
This one above isnt so bad but just to set the record straight, Fender did not dominate the market, it was wide open with regard to the electric Bass. Uncharted territory really. And yep Leo was the one to copy, but nobody did, not for awhile. Gibson, Hofner, and many others tried to compete with Leo by making short scale basses. You saw what happened there right? They flopped, they didn't fit the players and they sounded inferior, and scale was a huge factor. It was a decade a later until anything else became successful/palatable for players (Rickenbacker 4000 33.5" - 1958 Gibson Thunderbird 34" 1963). The first strong contenders.
This statement just shows ignorance regarding the topic. I am not saying you are an ignorant person, but I am saying that thinking that amplification has anything to do with the scale length of electric basses, even in 1951, is just out there. You guessed, and were wrong. Amplification was not going to have any impact on Fender's decision as to which scale he eventually wound up with. As a matter of fact, he was working with 30" and 32" scales extensively. The problem? He was unable to get suitable articulation, richness, and resonance from the notes. It didn't SOUND good or at least it didn't sound good enough. He knew that was not going to fly with a very unpredictable and discerning market to please. He also knew that if he didnt get it right, there were going to be several other makers at his heels. They got much better sound when trying out some longer scales like 36". The problem with 36" was that this instrument was going to be fretted and the spacing of frets was too far at the top. Too much potential stretch for the average hand, so they arrived at 34. Process of elimination, its not super high tech but its perfectly logical and suitable science. Need references? There are many, page 12 of Illustrated History of Bass Guitars, Bacon Moorhouse 1995 is one place to start with.
A thousand dead bass players just turned in their graves. This is truly another statement that is just like "Whaaat??. I'm sorry and this next observation is usually not in my normal way of debating, but are you 12? I'm all for young folks playing music, but a little reverence to the past will actually make you a more rounded player. Given that the P-Bass, virtually unchanged in 60 years and still being wielded by some of music's best musicians does prove that the formula worked in 1951 and it works now. If Leo would have opted for the 30 or 32 scale his bass venture would have likely flopped. And today, the 34" would still be dominant, its just that we would be remembering Rickenbacker or some other company as the Bass pioneer.
From the entire reading if any single statement should be referenced, one that I would want to get across, it is this: "He was working with 30" and 32" scales extensively. The problem? He was unable to get suitable articulation, richness, and resonance from the notes. It didn't SOUND good or at least it didn't sound good enough." - considering all other parameters of bass guitars being equal, there is nothing that has changed from a length of steel string that contacts a nut at one end and a bridge saddle at the other. And a longer scale length produces a better sound than a shorter one. I am certain there are some short scales that sound better than some standard or longs scales, but I assure you that it would have nothing to do with the scale length.
