[quote name='Geek99' post='258451' date='Aug 8 2008, 07:53 PM']I'm really hankering for a jazz bass (probably a Squier VMJ) - I dont have the longest fingers in the world though.
I've read that Rickenbackers have a shorter scale, does anyone know if that extra inch makes them that much easier to play?
I want to know if the extra money is worth it for the comfort!
thanks[/quote]
I've never had a problem going from 34" to 35", but what i don't like is what the extra inch does to the tension of the A, D, G strings? Does anybody else think that the trade off betwen a slightly tighter B string with a questionably better sound is worth the tightning of the rest of the strings?
I used to play Wal's and they were 34" scale and had amazing B's. I switched to Status with 35" and felt that even though the B sounded slightly clearer (i still put this down to the graphite through neck), it had lost the bottom end of the Wal?
So 34 or 35?? I read that Ken Smith said that the 35" scale was a fad. He still makes his basses with 34", however with the licensed KSD basses, the distributer wanted 35" scale because he thought that they would sell better?
Sadowsky 34", Pedullar 34"
Sorry to get off topic a bit, i think if you have small hands, it's probably not the scale length but the string spacing that might cause problems? I have banana fingers and i can't get on with any bass that has wide string spacing - 19/20mm. Ricks and Jazz's have very fast slim necks, either which i think you'll like, but you can pick up a decent Jap Fender for not a lot of money, whereas Ricks are fairly pricy. Also i have ben told to watch out for neck warping on old Ricks.
Sorry for the long post, i'm bored :-)