Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Smith
Anything you do that moves the nut closer to the Bridge moves the notes downwards over the shoulders as well. Every shortening has to be thoroughly thought out. Playability is the key.
Show me some pictures and all the measurements. I am sure there will be questions for more measurements regardless but still, show me/us the bass before you do anything. Shorting to 41" from 42" is a big move. Sometimes just moving the bridge up a bit makes it all easier. A 42" length is not long. Usually I only consider shortening basses that are over 42". That extra inch over 41" is only 1/2" in spacing the first octave. A more desired length these days is 41 1/2". That makes your bass only 1/4" inch longer for the first octave.
Many old broad and cello shaped shouldered basses have been totally cut down and the shoulders sloped. That is a huge job and requires the edging and purfling replaced in the process if you want the bass to look right after the job. This is something that is usually only done on finer more expensive basses as the cost of a job like this costs more tahn the average bass itself.
|
The bass in question is this one - heres the link from a previous posting on the site -
http://www.smithbassforums.com/showthread.php?t=1203
I do say that the bass is 42,5" in the original post but on re checking found it to be 42".
The neck came loose last week , and with minimal effort I gently worked it free from the body so that it wouldn't break the ribbing.
The neck was so badly glued on that it was fortuitous that it didn't just break off during a performance , before re-gluing I thought that maybe its time to look at making the bass 'easier to get around on'!!
The bass was never overly difficult to play , but it does require more effort in the left arm angle to get a correct and even 'classical grip' .
Maybe it hasn't got anything to scale of the bass at all ? What other factors should be considered before shortening the string length?