The Steel Guitar Forum

Does anyone know why Rickenbacker and the early electric makers chose such a short scale like 22.5" or thereabouts instead of the usual 25" for their lap steels.
I find it interesting that acoustics were mostly around the 25" why go such a short scale when transferring to electric.
I have a bunch of 30s to 40s laps and the scale is all over the place from 22" up to 24"
Seems like they didn't follow the acoustic counterparts.
Any thoughts

Cheers Kelvin

I have often heard that bar slants come out more in tune with the shorter 22" scale.

This is true. The closer to the nut you are, the harder it is to play three string slants properly.
Of course, on a longer scale, the frets are a tiny bit farther apart up above the 12th fret, and therefore perhaps a little easier to do accurate slants at that end.
Many people prefer the shorter scale.
Jerry Byrd loved the short scale.
Me, too.
If you don't slant, then that doesn't matter.
The longer scales are supposed to be better for tone and harmonics.
Just send me any of those old short scale steels you don't want.

Hello Kelvin,

Lots of good advice here, so I think I'll put in my two cents, too.

I have lap steels with both scale lengths. I use the long scale to rehearse and the short scale onstage. I use a nice Lapstick Studio live since it sounds fantastic and has a shorter, more maneuverable scale length. I try making everything as easy as possible doing shows since you have enough to worry about anyway. That said, please take this advice with a grain of salt since I use .08s, a lightweight pyrex slide, a compressor for sustain, and a House D.I./miced Pignose 7-100 amp, making it super easy to rock out. I figure it sounds good, so why suffer?

Hope this helps some.

Alexa

PS: Samples of tunes done with both lap steels mentioned are at my Youtube lesson channel at the link below...

Jerry Byrd said that the ideal scale length was 22 1/2" and who's to argue with the "master of touch and tone"?

I don't believe that instrument makers were thinking about what would be better for slants. They probably just cut the first fret or two off of a standard guitar scale to arrive at the shorter scale lengths.

Long scale frypan=best tone, while short scale= easier slants, with not as good tone as the long one. I figure the best tone is worth the hassle of more difficult slants on a long one ( which I don't have )

Shaving off an inch or two from the scale length on a cast aluminum frypan probably saves a few ounces of weight? I may be wrong, please send me various sizes of Richen/Rickenbackers for "evaluation purposes".

Jason Hull wrote:I don't believe that instrument makers were thinking about what would be better for slants. ...

I've always thought that playability probably did play a big part in the abundance of short scale steels that were made.
Back in the day, the beginner and enthusiast market was huge and the factorys churned out thousands of low priced entry level steels. Before video games and other modern distractions, kids actually took lessons and learned to play real instruments. Its all about what your target market is and what sells and a easy to play inexpensive shiny new steel would be an easier sell.

It might have something to do with the lowest note.
Fender basses are usually 34" scale because the low note is so low compared to a guitar.
A guitar low note is E while a steel low note is usually C.
The low C(octave below lap steel) on a PSG C6 sounds dull and muddy to me. Only a 24" scale.
Just a thought.

Tom Pettingill wrote:

Jason Hull wrote:I don't believe that instrument makers were thinking about what would be better for slants. ...

I've always thought that playability probably did play a big part in the abundance of short scale steels that were made.
Back in the day, the beginner and enthusiast market was huge and the factorys churned out thousands of low priced entry level steels. Before video games and other modern distractions, kids actually took lessons and learned to play real instruments. Its all about what your target market is and what sells and a easy to play inexpensive shiny new steel would be an easier sell.

I just meant that they probably didn't put much thought into the actual measurement; that they would have shortened a standard scale length by a few frets. People are lazy. Well, I am anyway!

I understand it's much easier to slant on a shorter scale instrument,but what I am trying to establish is why did the first electrics go to a short scale when lap steelers of the day were used to long scale acoustics .

I don't think the ability to slant came into the equation ,but I may be wrong ,I think slanting became possible Because of the shorter scale.

I don't think cost factors came into it either.

Possible Michael L Allen if you are around may have a thought on this subject.

Cheers Kelvin

Jason Hull wrote:

Tom Pettingill wrote:

Jason Hull wrote:I don't believe that instrument makers were thinking about what would be better for slants. ...

I've always thought that playability probably did play a big part in the abundance of short scale steels that were made.
Back in the day, the beginner and enthusiast market was huge and the factorys churned out thousands of low priced entry level steels. Before video games and other modern distractions, kids actually took lessons and learned to play real instruments. Its all about what your target market is and what sells and a easy to play inexpensive shiny new steel would be an easier sell.

I just meant that they probably didn't put much thought into the actual measurement; that they would have shortened a standard scale length by a few frets. People are lazy. Well, I am anyway!

Seems to me if people were lazy, they would have just stuck with the ballpark 25" guitar scale length and not go through the trouble of shortening it - that would have required even less effort and thinking!

DELETED

DELETED

DELETED

Michael, That is awesome! It seems very close to a Weissenborn design (hollow - square neck), although inexpensively made? Those strings look pretty ancient, but what does it sound like?


--Jamie

DELETED

Hey Jamie,here is my Hollywood it sounds great not at all bright nice mid range not a big bass as Michael said.It has that great old Blues sound think Tampa Red.
Mine has the Piano pin tuners which have the benefit of coupling the strings direct to the peghead and stay in tune better than any guitar i have ever owned .
Beside it is my Weissenbaby a 19' scale tuned to a high C loud bright and cutting great recording Lap.

Cheers Kelvin

William Lake wrote:It might have something to do with the lowest note.
Fender basses are usually 34" scale because the low note is so low compared to a guitar.
A guitar low note is E while a steel low note is usually C.
The low C(octave below lap steel) on a PSG C6 sounds dull and muddy to me. Only a 24" scale.
Just a thought.

Basil knows the timeline far better than I, but I seem to recall that back in the day when Rickenbacher, National, etc. started producing lap steels, the standard tunings were high or low A, (lo to hi) AC#EAC#E or EAEAC#E. Or one of the E tunings (EAEG#C#E, or EAEG#BE (lo to hi). C6 came along later.

Some idiot has to ask, and I AM THAT IDIOT! Isn't a 25" scale tuned to G6 or G13 like my resophonic simply a C6 or C13 with a 19 inch scale and a 6 inch "overhang?" Except for open string work, it seems like that's how I approach material written for C6 lap.

I think I'd use a 2.75" bullet (instead of a 3") if I had a 22.5" scale. I can't comfortably span the two fret, three string slants near the nut on my guitars with a 2.75".

Bogue