Sorry, being 6'4" (or 6'5" in my case) just doesn't happen without pain. You have no idea how many times I bash my head into stuff! I swear, the whole world is designed for people who are 5'10" and shorter...harley wrote:On the other hand, if you can find a painless way to make me suddenly 6'4", I'll find a way deal with the new wardrobe issues.
short scale Rickenbacker basses
Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4
Re: short scale Rickenbacker basses
I have NO idea what to do with those skinny stringed things... I'm just a bass player...
- hieronymous
- Intermediate Member
- Posts: 837
- Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2005 10:46 pm
- Contact:
Re: short scale Rickenbacker basses
I only played long-scale Fenders for the longest time. I also had a 32" scale Alembic which was cool, then my 4001. It wasn't until I got into Gibsons (an EB-2, Melody Maker Bass, and Les Paul Triumph) that I discovered the joy of short scale. It's just fun! Some people say the low E isn't tight enough, but I haven't found it to be a problem. I've also got a Guild Starfire Bass & M-85 fretless that are great, and an Alembic Stanley Clarke. Sometimes, when I first pick up the 4001 after playing the Alembic, I find my hand to get a little sore, but that goes away pretty quick once I get used to it. I love RIckenbackers because I can really attack them with a pick and they sound great - I wonder if a 30" scale would be the same way? I've never played a 3000 series...cjj wrote:4001/6? Cool!hieronymous wrote:I would love a short-scale 4001! Or how about a 4001/6? (just thinking/wishing out loud!)![]()
OK, I know what a short scale bass is, but what's the interest in them? I mean, other than people with short arms who can't really reach everything on a full scale, is there any other reason for them?
Re: short scale Rickenbacker basses
How about having to stoop at kitchen counters and bathroom sinks.cjj wrote:Sorry, being 6'4" (or 6'5" in my case) just doesn't happen without pain. You have no idea how many times I bash my head into stuff! I swear, the whole world is designed for people who are 5'10" and shorter...harley wrote:On the other hand, if you can find a painless way to make me suddenly 6'4", I'll find a way deal with the new wardrobe issues.
Re: short scale Rickenbacker basses
Oh man, you don't want hear my complaints about that... Oh my aching back...johnallg wrote:How about having to stoop at kitchen counters and bathroom sinks.cjj wrote:Sorry, being 6'4" (or 6'5" in my case) just doesn't happen without pain. You have no idea how many times I bash my head into stuff! I swear, the whole world is designed for people who are 5'10" and shorter...harley wrote:On the other hand, if you can find a painless way to make me suddenly 6'4", I'll find a way deal with the new wardrobe issues.
I have NO idea what to do with those skinny stringed things... I'm just a bass player...
Re: short scale Rickenbacker basses
You definitely do not want to visit and tour Fallingwater, then!cjj wrote:Sorry, being 6'4" (or 6'5" in my case) just doesn't happen without pain. You have no idea how many times I bash my head into stuff! I swear, the whole world is designed for people who are 5'10" and shorter...
Re: short scale Rickenbacker basses
I do kind of wonder sometimes when I switch from short scale to long scale what the reasoning behind the long scale was? Maybe they had some playability or tone issues back in the dark ages that the longer scale solved, but I haven't heard or experienced any since I started in about 1964. Or, perhaps they thought the longer, less-guitar-like scale might work better for string bass players crossing over to electrics. My first basses were Hagstroms and if you've never played a real Swedish Hagstrom, they have thin, lightning-fast, short-scale necks. You can get spoiled very quickly.
Re: short scale Rickenbacker basses
Good point! How was the scale length of the first electric basses chosen? The Fender was 34" but the Gibson EB1 was shorter at about 30". Bass strings were all flats back then so maybe there were intonation and/or tone problems with short scale basses. I'm sure there is the physical science that pushes for a longer scale. But, I've gotten great tone in the studio out of Hofner basses. I do think the type of music you play and how you play are factors. Singing and playing is easier with a shorter scaled bass, IMO, and a shorter scale is more fun to play. The coolest scale for me right now is a 31" medium scaled Kay bass. Maybe the 32" scale is THE great compromise, i.e., Guilds, etc.teb wrote:I do kind of wonder sometimes when I switch from short scale to long scale what the reasoning behind the long scale was? Maybe they had some playability or tone issues back in the dark ages that the longer scale solved, but I haven't heard or experienced any since I started in about 1964. Or, perhaps they thought the longer, less-guitar-like scale might work better for string bass players crossing over to electrics. My first basses were Hagstroms and if you've never played a real Swedish Hagstrom, they have thin, lightning-fast, short-scale necks. You can get spoiled very quickly.
Re: short scale Rickenbacker basses
OK people, Its been enlighting and amusing, but the Song remains the Same, I mean question. Are there any other known Rickenbacker short scale basses besides the 3000's????? I asked the question directly to Rickenbacker and whomever answered said they were discountinued for lack of sales, and no plan to make anymore. Hard to believe because I know alot of people who would be very interested. Thanks again.
Re: short scale Rickenbacker basses
That question was answered right away. Other than the 3000, there were a few short scale 4003's made. That's it. Since short scale basses aren't big sellers, it's not likely RIC would ever make them again. It wouldn't be too difficult for a good luthier to modify a 4003 for short scale use. It would involve moving the tailpiece and the bridge pickup forward and making a new fingerboard.
Re: short scale Rickenbacker basses
OK ACE, thanks to all for the input, I'm done dreaming and wishing. Might go for an old Rick and buckle down and do the long scale, it would open a big door. Or could do a FrankenRick, my other guitar guy builds beautiful guitars and basses. Or play what I have better. Bye
Re: short scale Rickenbacker basses
Well what ever you do, don't go after a used Rick 3000 (I have plenty of competition already).partime wrote:OK ACE, thanks to all for the input, I'm done dreaming and wishing. Might go for an old Rick and buckle down and do the long scale, it would open a big door. Or could do a FrankenRick, my other guitar guy builds beautiful guitars and basses. Or play what I have better. Bye
Re: short scale Rickenbacker basses
Harley, there is one on ebay now for $864. Its modified, bridge, tuners, and pickguard.Its also in England, don't know how well that would work if there was a problem.
Re: short scale Rickenbacker basses
Hello Paul. In answer to your question, are there any other Rickenbacker basses offered in short scale besides the 3000? The answer is yes. Jingle_Jangle, another PW on this forum can build you a stunning short scale acoustic/electric bass. They are pricey to be sure, but they are stunning. It is a topic that I intend to broach with Paul at some time in the future. Mark
Re: short scale Rickenbacker basses
I saw that one and the price is in the range I would have expected but the location is causing a bit of a concern. Then again, too far to walk is too far to walk so I'm not sure that England would make much more of a difference than, say, New York.partime wrote:Harley, there is one on ebay now for $864. Its modified, bridge, tuners, and pickguard.Its also in England, don't know how well that would work if there was a problem.
I thought about e-mailing the seller to see what the rough estimate was to ship something from there to Colorado, USA.
Re: short scale Rickenbacker basses
Shipping from the UK runs about $125-$150. Remember you'll need about $350.00 worth of parts to put the bass back to stock.
