Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Referring to short scale models, that is. Nobody here really believes this, right? Please feel free to agree or disagree.

My experience tells me otherwise - I find them to play like greased lightning. Not meaning to advertise, but you can check my website for samples of lead work with my 320. And feel free to link to your own samples

No, I don't believe they're just for rhythm, but they're damn effective for rhythm. Any guitar worth its salt can be used for lead, if you've got the skills...I don't.

Scastles wrote:No, I don't believe they're just for rhythm, but they're damn effective for rhythm.

Good point, Stan. I find the short scale timbre and tone occupy a distinct spot in the mix.

Playing lead on a short-scale guitar could be challenging for those of us with larger fingers. With a full scale, I find the going tough above the 15th fret as it is (not that I am a lead-guitarist's bootlace). On tone, a short scale produces a more fundamental-heavy note, and will also have a little less sustain, which could be a drawback for some lead styles.

So, if you are a smaller person (or a large person with small fingers) and you like a fundamental-based tone and mega-sustain is not your thing, then a short-scale guitar should be great for lead!

I think they are great for doing weird long-stretch chords (some Beatle stuff comes to mind), but they always gave the same "plonky" rhythm tone when I owned one......and as for playing leads above the 9th fret.....fuggetaboutit.

antipodean wrote:
So, if you are a smaller person (or a large person with small fingers) and you like a fundamental-based tone and mega-sustain is not your thing, then a short-scale guitar should be great for lead!

That sounds just like me, Evan, fundamental. Sometimes I use my effects to bring out more harmonics. Too much sustain isn't for me, but I do like some feedback when I want it. Again, the effects or amp settings help with that.

collin wrote:I think they are great for doing weird long-stretch chords (some Beatle stuff comes to mind), but they always gave the same "plonky" rhythm tone when I owned one......and as for playing leads above the 9th fret.....fuggetaboutit.

Collin, what kind of pickups were you using?

Actually, I want one badly because I am almost exclusively a rhythm player, when playing a guitar at all. They are perfect for the stretch one needs to do Chuck Berry chords. I have a full scale John Lennon model, but would like the short one even more. All well, someday.....Also, it seems to me that most people would say they work best for rhythm stuff. Having said that, you can do some lightning fast leads on a short scale too. So, okay, I will say it is good for both styles, but I would be buying it for rhythm stuff. Anyone know where to find a short scale right now?

Someone tell Mr Fogerty he's been doing it wrong!

Hmm.. I checked the previous posts and didn't see anyone saying anything about being wrong... Not sure what you mean here. Cool video though!
G.

Thanks, Nick! Now that's what I'm talkin' about!

I've said it before, I'll say it again; it's just a guitar, only limited by it's player's imagination, and its own physical properties.
JimK

kiramdear wrote:

collin wrote:I think they are great for doing weird long-stretch chords (some Beatle stuff comes to mind), but they always gave the same "plonky" rhythm tone when I owned one......and as for playing leads above the 9th fret.....fuggetaboutit.

Collin, what kind of pickups were you using?

Reissue high output toasters, I mean it was a cool guitar, but definitely not one that agreed with my hands! Different strokes I guess...... That said, I wouldn't mind a nice c58 though.... Just for the collection.

collin wrote: I wouldn't mind a nice c58 though.... Just for the collection.

You and me both!

kiramdear wrote:

collin wrote: I wouldn't mind a nice c58 though.... Just for the collection.

You and me both!

Yeah, but you see.....I price out guitars by the square inch.

Expensive C58's just don't add up, by my standards.