Short scale basses

[andy]

Heya, I was wondering if anyone here has much experience with short scale basses? Despite the well known drawbacks compared to full scale instruments, I have a bit of a soft spot for Fender Mustangs and Musicmasters, Gibson EB-0's and 'Beatle' basses.

There seem to be plenty of cheapo knock-offs of these instruments about, so I may just 'treat' myself to a pocket money version of one or two of them, but oddly, they all seem to be supplied with very light strings- I would have thought that this would have compounded the low tension problems with the short scale, and expect to feel the need to bulk up the gauges pretty quickly. I suppose the anwer here is a bit obvious really, but has anyone cut down a set of full scale strings from .45-.105 or so and put them on a short scaler? I can't envisage any trouble with doing this, but then again, there is a sneaking suspicion at the back of my mind that it might prove to be a pain to do for some unforseen reason. I guess it's only because I have never seen a low E on a short scale set of strings heavier than .95, but if anyone has any experience here, it would help put my mind at rest.

Cheers, Andy

[sumgai]

Andy,

andy said:

...........
I would have thought that this would have compounded the low tension problems with the short scale

No, it goes the other way - too heavy a string (on any neck), and you introduce a string tension that might warp the neck (when tuned to more-or-less standard pitch).

Here's the physics of the thing........ Take a "standard" 34" scale bass and tune it correctly. Now fret a note on any string at the second fret (approximately 30" from the bridge). How's it sound? Go back and re-tune the string such that the nominal pitch at the second fret is the 'standard' tuning pitch, i.e. F# becomes E, on the lowest string. (Yes, this means that E becomes D.) Now, capo the bass at the second fret, and play. What's different?

Nothing, really. It should feel just like a real bass, with the possible exception that it's a bit easier to bend the strings, should the muse move you to do so.

Where the confusion sets in is the fact that the smaller the string, the less tension is needed to achieve a given pitch. But at the same time, there's less mass with which to excite the magnetic field, resulting in a weaker tone. By weaker, I mean both the overall volume and the tone itself, it is not as full or well-rounded with a smaller-diameter string, compared to a larger-diameter string. (This phenomenon is easily discerned in both guitars and basses.)

So if one were to use larger gauge strings on a short scale bass, would there be any problems? No. In fact, for the above reasons, the tone is even better, IMNSHO. I have one (a Mustang Bass knock-off), and it's had the same 45-105 strings on it for the last 6 years, and people still come up to me and marvel at the tone. (Well, they did, until I sort of retired it a couple of months ago, in favor of my new fretless Jazz Bass. ;D)

It's been my experience that for the most part, after the quality of the pickups themselves, your overall tone will be most affected by the brand and type of string itself, and the placement of the pickups along the string's length. The tension doesn't seem to play as much of a role, unless one counts overall volume as a tonal criterion.

HTH


sumgai


Footnote: And yes, real bass players don't change their strings, not until they have to replace a stolen instrument. Those players who do install a new set every so often do it for the exact same reasons as do six-string guitar players - to restore the "brightness" that is lost when a string has been used for some time.

Excuse me? Isn't the bass supposed to be the foundation of the sound and tone? It certainly isn't supposed to be a second (or whatever) lead instrument. Again in my experience, bass players who take some kind of solo are merely frustrated six-string players who have moved to a different pond, where they can be the bigger frog.

But that's not to say that a good bass player can't express him/herself when the occasion demands....... witness the guitar player's having to replace a broken string, and the bass steps up to the plate to keep the crowd entertained for the nonce. Can't do that with a walking boogie pattern for more than 4 bars, to be sure. ;D That's the only time a bass player should "show his chops". I do that once in awhile by shifting to some jazz scales that just aren't heard in most venues, these days. Not to mention, most drummers get into it too, thus taking the immediate pressure off the string replacer. That's what a bass player is for, to bolster the lead instruments - not to replace them or to compete with them for stage/face time.

</rant>

[andy]

sumgai said:

Andy,

andy said:

So if one were to use larger gauge strings on a short scale bass, would there be any problems? No. In fact, for the above reasons, the tone is even better, IMNSHO. I have one (a Mustang Bass knock-off), and it's had the same 45-105 strings on it for the last 6 years, and people still come up to me and marvel at the tone.

Great, thats the sort of thing I was hoping to hear! Im thinking of these basses more for fun than anything, but but my muso side can't help but think about the quality of the results at the end of the day.

I'm a bit lost on 'IMNSHO' though. In My Non-Sustainably Humble Opinion???!! ;D

sumgai said:

Andy,

andy said:

Footnote: And yes, real bass players don't change their strings, not until they have to replace a stolen instrument. Those players who do install a new set every so often do it for the exact same reasons as do six-string guitar players - to restore the "brightness" that is lost when a string has been used for some time.

Excuse me? Isn't the bass supposed to be the foundation of the sound and tone? It certainly isn't supposed to be a second (or whatever) lead instrument. Again in my experience, bass players who take some kind of solo are merely frustrated six-string players who have moved to a different pond, where they can be the bigger frog.

But that's not to say that a good bass player can't express him/herself when the occasion demands....... witness the guitar player's having to replace a broken string, and the bass steps up to the plate to keep the crowd entertained for the nonce. Can't do that with a walking boogie pattern for more than 4 bars, to be sure. ;D That's the only time a bass player should "show his chops". I do that once in awhile by shifting to some jazz scales that just aren't heard in most venues, these days. Not to mention, most drummers get into it too, thus taking the immediate pressure off the string replacer. That's what a bass player is for, to bolster the lead instruments - not to replace them or to compete with them for stage/face time.

Yep, most of my basses have had two sets of strings put onto them- the one from the factory, and the one I put on that was the right gauge. In fact, I have an Ibanez which shipped with Elixir's, used for the only band of mine where 'bright' really mattered, and after 4 years, three of the five are still original. More impressively, the difference between the new and old strings doesn't show, even for slap parts. They really do do what they say on the packet! Shame they cost a bomb and are nigh on impossible to buy as singles.

I agree on the bass as 'foundation'- its the reason I came to prefer playing bass to guitar, being the cake rather than the icing, as it were. That said, i am guilty of messing with it a bit- for one project I have put together a multi-output bass to send the bridge pickup to a guitar amp (stereo for recording) to fill the space of a rhythm guitar, still playing 'bass' just filling more of the tonal spectrum. Its quite fun actually, and seems to be working so far, but that really started because most of the tracks I was peddling would have taken 8 to 10 guys to play live, and I can't afford those kind of session fees!

I really have no interest in bass solos though- my favourite musical situation is still with a deep, friendly tone, playing ultra simple lines, just making sure it all feels good!

[ux4484]

sumgai said:

Excuse me? Isn't the bass supposed to be the foundation of the sound and tone? It certainly isn't supposed to be a second (or whatever) lead instrument. Again in my experience, bass players who take some kind of solo are merely frustrated six-string players who have moved to a different pond, where they can be the bigger frog.

I'm thinkin' John Entwistle and Stanley Clarke would have something to say about that (well...let's just say John's turning in his grave). I imagine even McCartney who has often replaced a rhythm guitar part with a bass line might object a bit (though Paul CAN put down the bass and pick up any other instrument that he decides he can play).
Actually, I agree with you at the personal performance level, I always felt when I was playing bass that I didn't want a solo (it's hard enough singing and playing bass, don't toss in a solo in on top of that!), but I have always been personally impressed when a bass player can jump up and take and/or make a solo his(her) own. I've seen John E. and Geddy Lee pull it off quite well, and I don't think either of them had/has six string envy. I saw a band at The Abbey Pub a few years back that had two bassist's and NO GUITAR, while I don't think they'll get anywhere with it, their execution was impressive. They had an interesting setup. One had a short scale bass with light strings, and one had a full scale with heavy strings....you get the idea.

Back O.T.

Andy,
My very first bass was a Cortez Mustang copy, I put the biggest strings I could fit on it (had to open the nut slots and the bridge holes a bit). It sounded great, but being roundwounds it was very buzzy when played intensely, so I switched to the same gauge flatwounds and was very happy with the results, it was the last set of strings I put on that bass before it was stolen. I replaced it with a Kingston Hofner knock-off, which I also put heavy gauge flatwounds on (and took the pup covers off), I never had any neck problems with either bass, and the increase in signal level and depth of tone was miles above the stock light gauge strings.

[andy]

Cool, thanks for that, UX. I've got one eye on Ebay now already!

I wonder if its worth noting that both McCartney and Clarke play short scalers, too?

[sumgai]

Ah, I see my 'barb' had its intended effect. ;D

Stanley Clarke is: a) not a rock player, he's in jazz and fusion - different styles, calling for different playing methodologies..... not to mention, those styles are most often performed by small combos of virtuoso players, not large ensembles, hence the desire to make one instrument to sound like more than just itself; b) Just because a bass player is adept at his craft doesn't mean that he isn't envious of the solo-taker(s) in the band.

I want to remind you of all the musicians in the orchestra - they are there to make a large sound, but they don't all take solos, as it were. They are, by and large, extremely talented people, well capable of pulling off just about any lick or riff you might name, but in the end, they are the underlying foundation for the few performers that are indeed the stars of the show. Do they have "solo envy"? Probably not. At the end of the night, they get just about the same amount of money as the next guy, give or take a few bucks. And when push comes to shove, no music is written to be all solo and no accompanyment - there's always room for a foundation, but there's very seldom room for more than one soloist at a time. Assembling a band of soloists is akin to remaking Cream - you're gonna get fireworks, just prior to the big bang!

Some of us in the music world know our places, and I for one freely admit that I am not a soloist in any way, shape or form. I once thought I was, until the drugs wore off, and I woke up from la-la land. But yes, I know of one band that has not one, not two, but three bass players, and they all have different effects. Not to mention that they all sing, in harmony, the overall sound is gut-wrenching killer. (The only other player is the drummer - no "lead" instruments at all, which is probably a smart move on their part, it would just gum up the works.)

~!~!~!~

IMNSHO - In My Not So Humble Opinion.........


HTH





sumgai

[ux4484]

andy said:

Cool, thanks for that, UX. I've got one eye on Ebay now already!

I wonder if its worth noting that both McCartney and Clarke play short scalers, too?

Not when Paul was playing the Rick!

BTW, rave reviews on the Rogue Hofner Copy, some think it's just as good or better than the Hofner Icon entry model.

[andy]

Oh yeah, I forgot about the Rick! I've heard good things about the Rogue copy, but I'm not sure they have distribution over here. I've never seen one on sale, but then I'm making quite a habit of hassling distributors for little bits of info- thats another one on my list of targets!

And Sumgai, as it happens, my writing partners dad actually did remake Cream! Indeed, I don't think they got on too well this time round either, but I'm sure all involved got plenty of buck for their bang...

[ChrisK]

I don't think they got on too well this time round either, but I'm sure all involved got plenty of buck for their bang...

Yeah, but in a senile "if you remember the first Woodstock you weren't there kind of way", I got the bang that I was looking for for my bucks from the remake....

.....even tho Bruce sat down half of the time.

...and Baker moved well for a dead guy.....


I really (want to) like the short scale basses, but.......

I only have two basses now, an Urge II and a Kramer XB9 from a waaaays back. Can't find a (real) reason to buy another one, even tho the Variax bass is (still) on clearance for $499.

I guess it's because I really cant tell the difference anymore. For me, bass is more felt than heard.

But, I still enjoy listening to a great bassist "run amok" (John
Entwistle).

[andy]

chrisk said:

I really (want to) like the short scale basses, but.......

I only have two basses now, an Urge II and a Kramer XB9 from a waaaays back. Can't find a (real) reason to buy another one, even tho the Variax bass is (still) on clearance for $499.

I wish I could share that sentiment! I have four basses, and I'm supposed to be selling them off. I finally have my electric guitars down to two I'm keeping, but still have to get the guts up to get rid of my strat. As for the low end, its a tough decision as to which should go as it is, and buying more won't do the situation a bit of good. At least I'm just looking at the cheaper options this time, and being short scalers I can squeeze them into smaller gaps!

I guess I've still got the bug pretty bad...

[ashcatlt]

This is an old thread, but I only rarely get out of the wiring board...

I've owned a couple of really cheap short-scale basses in the past. Can't recall ever having any trouble stringing them with standard scale strings. The one thing you might run into is that (as I'm sure you've noticed) the fatter strings on a bass are actually tapered at the tuner end. If that tapered part isn't quite long enough, you could have a hard time actually fitting the thing into the tuner stem without making several wraps. Can't say I recall this ever being a big deal.

I'd also like to mention that there are good reasons to play a bass up outside of the lowest octave. I may be showing my age here, I guess.

1) Primus - Les Claypool plays bass, rhythm, and quite occasionally lead, all at the same time without missing a beat. In fact, I'm pretty sure he doesn't actually need a band at all. That sort of thing forces the guitarist to completely re-think his place in the universe.

2) Classic New Wave/Goth - Bands like Joy Division, the Cure, the Banshees use high melodic basslines, often played on 6-strings like the Fender VI (which I guess is more like a baritone, but I've never actually touched one) as a foundation of much of their sound. Where would "She's Lost Control" be if they had insisted on keeping the bass out of the way of the guitar? Sure, you could play those same kinds of things on the low strings of a guitar, but as sumgai mentioned, the tone just won't be the same.

That's basically why I'm currently trying to find a way to explain to my wife that I'm going to drop a couple hundred dollars on another guitar. My Yamaha P-bass copy is strung low, starting at the low B from a 5 string set. I'm going to get a short scale and string it the other way - starting at A and going to the high C. The shorter scale will make it a little easier for my guitarist hands to play chords and melodies, and the lighter strings should alleviate a bit of that muddy nastiness you can sometimes get from playing more than one note at a time on a standard bass.

I was looking at the Squier Bronco, which is their lower priced version of the Mustang. Then I found the Gretsch Electromatic(?) Jet Junior which looks a lot cooler, comes pretty highly recomended, and seems to sell used at a reasonable price.

[kuzi16]

i have one bass. 24 full frets. Im not a short scale kinda guy... in fact, id like MORE frets. (more or less to say i have em)

i have a 6'6 "wingspan" so my arms are long enough and on my bass i can easily play power chords all the way down to the low F5. my hands are large. i prefer bass to guitar. i hope to one day build a six or seven string bass.


...or an 8 string bass thats got an octave string much like a 12 string guitar would. I think my fingers are big enough to play that.

[sumgai]

kuzi,

More frets, Drill Sergeant!

If you got the hands, this builder's got just the thing for you!


www.tkinstruments.com


Enjoy. ;D





sumgai

p.s. This site has a page on tuning one's guitar/bass in 5ths, instead of 4ths. I do recommend it.

[cynical1]

Isn't the bass supposed to be the foundation of the sound and tone? It certainly isn't supposed to be a second (or whatever) lead instrument.

Pachelbel's exact thoughts regarding the cello while writing his Canon in D, 1698

[newey]

Pachelbel's exact thoughts regarding the cello

No fair trotting out Pachibel!

And, if he had ever played a six-string bass guitar through a '59 Bassman, he might have felt differently.

[cynical1]

Sorry..couldn't resist...

I just can't help but wonder where all these guitarists would be if it weren't for Charlie Christian and Les Paul. Probably playing rhythm in a Luau at the Holiday Inn because the mindset of "a guitar is a rhythm instrument" would never have changed.

Granted, a gratuitous bass solo is just as annoying as a gratuitous guitar solo. I will not argue that point one bit. It's like the old saying...How do you meet the two drink minimum at the Jazz Club...wait for the bass solo...

What you play has to fit into the context of the SONG. No matter what instrument you play it has to work inside the song or it's just too much air in the balloon. Just because you are a marksman with the pistol doesn't mean you take it to the mall to practice...

Ok, soapbox is now returned to the upright and locked position...

Cynical1

[ChrisK]

...or an 8 string bass thats got an octave string much like a 12 string guitar would. I think my fingers are big enough to play that.

Ooooh,nooooo.............

"....A premium quality 8-String conversion neck with standard Fender bass heel dimensions. It balances well with the J.Bass® body..................."


;D ;D ;D ;D

[newey]

I just can't help but wonder where all these guitarists would be if it weren't for Charlie Christian and Les Paul.

True, but let's not forget that the technology changed, too, so as to allow them to do that. There was a reason that the guitar was formerly thought of as a rhythm instrument.

And, not just because of the advent of magnetic pickup guitars, either. If you go find a pristine example of a "good" acoustic guitar from the 1920's, play it, and compare it to the same from the 1940's or so, you'll appreciate the changes. The older ones were really more of a rhythm instrument.

[dunkelfalke]

i wouldn't say that, remember the classical guitar.

[newey]

True enough, Dunkel. I was thinking only of steel stringed ones.

[sumgai]

Classical guitars were never meant to be played in an orchestral context. They were designed to enable an instrumentalist to accompany himself, or to express 'his inner self' on the instrument, in a strictly solo context.

When playing along side of other instruments, most pre-war guitars (made prior to 1945) were easily drowned out, particularly if they were played as a single string melodical instrument. There simply were no players who could team up with others of equal or better ability that could then emphasize a solo by increasing the apparent volume with more than one instrument (playing as a duet/trio/? in unison). This is why guitars were "upgraded" in design to accept metallic strings (over the common gut types (there was no nylon, way back then!)), to increase the volume. It was also why, once that was done, Rickenbacker started thinking in terms of a magnetic pickup and some amplification, somewhere around 1932.

To get back on the immediate topic (but still off-topic), most classical guitars were made with the intention of performing music written (or translated) expressly for that particular style of instrument. I'm confident that the same holds true today, but oh-so-many players can and do stretch the boundaries, refusing to accept the wisdom of yesteryear's sages. Ottmar Leibert and Al DiMeola come to mind.....

HTH


sumgai

[dunkelfalke]

Classical guitars were never meant to be played in an orchestral context.

but they did. as guitar has replaced the lute as the instrument of choice most lute concerts were transcribed to guitar (e.g. concerto for guitar, strings and continuo in d major by antonio vivaldi).

back then many instruments weren't that loud

[sumgai]

dunk,

Yes, you're entirely correct. However, if one looks at the setting in which these works were performed, one will note that such pieces were played in an intimate setting, usually seating no more than 1 or 2 score individuals. A concert hall holding an orchestra of 80 players and seating 400 listeners would have been an impossible venue for an unamplified and unaccompanied instrument. Even in these smaller theatres, the lute was (or lutes were) placed on a raised dias in the center of the stage, and the other instruments were dispersed well back from that position in order to reduce their volume.

Note that in RV93, the lute is poised as a single instrument in the ensemble, and does not attempt to be heard while the strings are playing - it has a rather large number of rest measures. A recent release of that particular piece shows no less than 9 violins in juxtaposition to that lone guitar (nee lute). Good thing they invented electronics and stuff, before they tried that trick, eh? ;D

HTH



sumgai

[kuzi16]

cynical1 said:

Isn't the bass supposed to be the foundation of the sound and tone? It certainly isn't supposed to be a second (or whatever) lead instrument.

true true... but that doesnt mean that it has to be boring.
my current favorite bassline: The Lemon Song from Led Zeppelin II. it is the foundation of the song --but it is not a simple repeating bassline.

and a few of these guys may disagree with you on the lead instrument thing. A bass with 7,8, or more strings can be a lead instrument, and the rythem at the same time:



and on a kitch level...

[andy]

I've obviously missed much of this thread whilst away, but a little sideline to the progression of the guitar from a background strummer to full on lead instrument is the resonator guitar, of course largley used for playing slide nowadays, but incorporating a 'speaker' to amplify the direct vibration of the strings. Not a permanent fix, obviously but a far more eco-friendly way to get more power from the intrument!

[andy]

Interesting links above too! Whilst browsing through them I found this one too:

It's not exactly well played all the way through, but they've oviously put the effort in- I'm not sure where the Latin sounding bit comes from, but aside from that it seems like a transcription of playing one of the early levels- takes me back!!