Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Erickson
.... I also have no objection to a longer string length; granted, I'm a fairly large guy with bigger hands and a flexible technique, but I really feel that the shorter string lengths we shoot for today are often a crutch (among several) keeping players from developing technique that would allow them to play a longer length without trouble. Sure, a shorter string length is functional and feels "easier" to play, but I don't think that in terms of tonal precision they stand up and that given the same bass and same player, assuming good technique, there is more potential for a tonally "clear" performance with a longer string length.
There's a reason there is only one row of guys playing bass in the orchestra - not everybody is able or willing to do it - we don't need to compromise the instrument so everyone can play it... 
(yes, I know there are other reasons too.  ) |
When I first read your post I thought you were just referring to the copy bass but reading it once again I think you are referring to the original which is in the process over being shortened, correct?
I don't know what kind of experience you have playing bass professionally but large basses are tiring to play on and difficult to play in tune as well. This is not about building chops. It's about playing music that was written after these big basses were made.
I can tell you this, give me a dozen or a hundred basses like this and I will shorten every one of them to 42" string length or less. The bass will be easier to play, the sound more focused and the bass itself more desirable to everyone.
I don't know of a single bass in modern times that was lengthened to over 42" but many that were shortened down to it.
Go buy a 44" length bass and try playing in an Orchestra. Let me know how you do.