Why isn't the Byrdland scale more popular?

[Stringswinger]

I have guitars with scale lengths from 24.75 up to 26 3/8. Scale length matters is terms of ease of grabbing chords and doing fast runs, tone and string tension. Nut width matters a bit less (Tone and string tension are not issues with nut width). Then there is body size and thickness, string type and gauge, amplification and playing position. It all matters.

I have different guitars for different sounds and styles (different amps too).

This music making thing ain't a one size fits all proposition. Never was, never will be. Life (and music) would be boring without the variety.

[wintermoon]

Birdies are very short @ 23.5", personally I prefer a 25.5" scale. That said, Gibson archtops started as 24 3/4" though many changed to 25.5" by the later 30s. But a 175 and their thinlines have always been 24 3/4" [save for 1970s ES-350T's] as have the majority of flat tops. Many [majority?] original D'Angelico's and D'Aquisto's are shorter than 25.5. Johnny Smith's have always been 25 and many modern archtops are as well so not really sure if one can say 25.5 is standard at this point.

[MtnCat]

From Fret position calculator - StewMac

[Chris236]

Thanks for that! Lol

[John A.]

Birdies are very short @ 23.5", personally I prefer a 25.5" scale. That said, Gibson archtops started as 24 3/4" though many changed to 25.5" by the later 30s. But a 175 and their thinlines have always been 24 3/4" [save for 1970s ES-350T's] as have the majority of flat tops. Many [majority?] original D'Angelico's and D'Aquisto's are shorter than 25.5. Johnny Smith's have always been 25 and many modern archtops are as well so not really sure if one can say 25.5 is standard at this point.

Most of the nominal 24-3/4” Gibsons are actually shorter (around 24-9/16”). So if you’re used to one of those, a Byrdland might not feel as different as people make them out to be. [I haven’t played shorter scale guitars enough to have a strong opinion about them.]

[Chris236]

Most of the nominal 24-3/4” Gibsons are actually shorter (around 24-9/16”). So if you’re used to one of those, a Byrdland might not feel as different as people make them out to be. [I haven’t played shorter scale guitars enough to have a strong opinion about them.]

likewise - many Byrds are a bit longer.

moot point unless you have trouble playing above the 1st or 2nd frets on 24 3/4 - 25.5 though (physically).

[Jazzjourney4Eva]

Birdies are very short @ 23.5", personally I prefer a 25.5" scale. That said, Gibson archtops started as 24 3/4" though many changed to 25.5" by the later 30s. But a 175 and their thinlines have always been 24 3/4" [save for 1970s ES-350T's] as have the majority of flat tops. Many [majority?] original D'Angelico's and D'Aquisto's are shorter than 25.5. Johnny Smith's have always been 25 and many modern archtops are as well so not really sure if one can say 25.5 is standard at this point.

“The guitar” is a “classical” guitar, not any kind of steel string guitar. Not a cowboy guitar, not a resonator, not an archtop, not a Les Paul.

The standard scale length is 25.5” (American equivalent to the actual metric system length). Why? Because they got here first. They preceded their followers. L5, Super 400, Strat, Tele are 25.5.

Ok, so big deal. Shorter scales for different reasons are a good thing. It’s just that the Byrdland is really, really short. If that’s what you need, then soak it up baby! Of course the 25.5 has much better overtones and all that jazz. But if you’re a sawed off little runt, or if you want to do the Ted Nugent thing with a carved archtop and crank up the Marshall stack, then OK, lol.

[wintermoon]

“The guitar” is a “classical” guitar, not any kind of steel string guitar. Not a cowboy guitar, not a resonator, not an archtop, not a Les Paul.

The standard scale length is 25.5” (American equivalent to the actual metric system length). Why? Because they got here first. They preceded their followers. L5, Super 400, Strat, Tele are 25.5.

Ok, so big deal. Shorter scales for different reasons are a good thing. It’s just that the Byrdland is really, really short. If that’s what you need, then soak it up baby! Of course the 25.5 has much better overtones and all that jazz. But if you’re a sawed off little runt, or if you want to do the Ted Nugent thing with a carved archtop and crank up the Marshall stack, then OK, lol.

Ok but for practical purposes I thought we were talking about archtops for the most part which is what I was referring to. With all due respect how many people reading this thread care what scale length a classical guitar is in relation to a Birdland?

ps. sorry Billy, I meant Byrdland

[Jazzjourney4Eva]

Ok but for practical purposes I thought we were talking about archtops for the most part which is what I was referring to. With all due respect how many people reading this thread care what scale length a classical guitar is in relation to a Birdland?

ps. sorry Billy, I meant Byrdland

Again, L5. Super 400. Care to expound on the historical significance of those?

And since classical guitars are so irrelevant, why would Gibson bother using their scale length? And why persist with it?

[jads57]

Well Byrdlands are definitely Beautiful looking instruments!

[wintermoon]

Again, L5. Super 400. Care to expound on the historical significance of those?

I could but as usual in every thread you post in you have all the answers, so why bother?
Carry on.....

[Jazzjourney4Eva]

An anecdotal note and a general one.

Shorter scale guitars are good for some things, no doubt. Playing single note/melody lines may be easier. Even stretchy chords are better facilitated by a shorter scale. But those bunchy chords and chords that are difficult to grab no matter where or on whatever guitar? I can only say that if your hands are anything other than small, it’s worse on a short scale in many cases. I have size 14 shoes and long hands, so it is what it is.

Starting a thread asking why a super short scale on a guitar that is decades old isn’t more popular, is to acknowledge that it ISN’T popular. Players vote with their dollars. The jury is in. And just to humor the thread - the question has been answered.

But if one one is seeking to MAKE it popular via debate, I would only suggest that they consider that they might be barking up a tree. But have fun.

[thelostboss]

I was surprised to see this today, short-scale Gibson - is that a 350T?

I hung with them enough that I should remember but age takes its toll!

Although this is 1972, by which time I was enjoying an all expenses paid tour of south-east Asia courtesy of the Australian government and so I'd not have known.

[tpandela]

I believe that Anthony Wilson played a Byrdland with Diana Krall during the live in Paris gig. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70b5-L13B6k

[Chris236]

An anecdotal note and a general one.

Shorter scale guitars are good for some things, no doubt. Playing single note/melody lines may be easier. Even stretchy chords are better facilitated by a shorter scale. But those bunchy chords and chords that are difficult to grab no matter where or on whatever guitar? I can only say that if your hands are anything other than small, it’s worse on a short scale in many cases. I have size 14 shoes and long hands, so it is what it is.

Starting a thread asking why a super short scale on a guitar that is decades old isn’t more popular, is to acknowledge that it ISN’T popular. Players vote with their dollars. The jury is in. And just to humor the thread - the question has been answered.

But if one one is seeking to MAKE it popular via debate, I would only suggest that they consider that they might be barking up a tree. But have fun.

I’m 6’2”, have huge hands and play a Byrdland. There’s absolutely nothing “bunchy” about it. As mentioned several times now(and hard numbers between frets posted) the spacing between the frets is essentially like you’re starting on the 2nd fret on a 25.5. Do you struggle bunching your fingers up on a 25.5 scale guitar above the 2nd fret?

Also the most common scale lengths are between 24 3/4 - 25 1/2 with outliers on either side like the Byrd. There is no STANDARD scale length and further more to claim that one scale length is sonically superior to the other is just your anonymous opinion.

[DawgBone]

I’m 6’2”, have huge hands and play a Byrdland. There’s absolutely nothing “bunchy” about it. As mentioned several times now(and hard numbers between frets posted) the spacing between the frets is essentially like you’re starting on the 2nd fret on a 25.5. Do you struggle bunching your fingers up on a 25.5 scale guitar above the 2nd fret?

Also the most common scale lengths are between 24 3/4 - 25 1/2 with outliers on either side like the Byrd. There is no STANDARD scale length and further more to claim that one scale length is sonically superior to the other is just your anonymous opinion.

I don't think it's the short scale or the neck width. The Byrdland isn't more popular because most guys, like me, just can't afford one! I can dream tho...

[customxke]

Again, L5. Super 400. Care to expound on the historical significance of those?

And since classical guitars are so irrelevant, why would Gibson bother using their scale length? And why persist with it?

L5s and Super 400s, as originally envisioned and produced, had 24 3/4” scale lengths….so let’s call the “Classical” scale length a later development in the archtop timeline.

[Chris236]

I don't think it's the short scale or the neck width. The Byrdland isn't more popular because most guys, like me, just can't afford one! I can dream tho...

Believe it or not, the necks are pretty thick (depth-wise). I’ve seen nut widths between 1 5/8 and 1 11/16.

[equenda]

I hope I won't cause problems because of this which could be called "CROSS POSTING".

The Gibson Byrdland is my dream guitar. Since I'm 160cm tall (63 inches) and I have rather small hands have a hard time holding the L-5, L-4, ES-175 and of course the Super 400. Even the Johnny Smith is too big for me.
Unfortunately I love the ebony fretboard, multiple-binding, gold hardware and carved-top so much.
For all these reasons the Byrdland is my favorite guitar.
Another option may be the L-5CT but I never had the chance to see and to play it. By now in Italy the very few Byrdlands that are on sale are over 9,000 dollars/euro. If there was an L-5CT the price would be even higher.
Another guitar that might suit me is the Gibson ES-350T (the reissue with normal scale....since the original ones sell for $15,000+), but again the price it's out of my budget.

After this I've explained it stands to reason that the Epiphone Byrdland Elite Series (MIJ, 2003) is the closest guitar to the REAL BYRDLAND, but at 1/3 the price.

To record this melodic study based on ALL THE THINGS YOU ARE, I used the Epiphone Byrdland.

The complete performance is at 4:54.

The sound (direct input in the sound card, without amplifier), seems good to me. Since I have small hands I can play without problems even in the fretboard high positions.
It's just a pity that there is no "Gibson" logo on the headstock

Ciao!

Ettore - www.quenda.it

[Jazzjourney4Eva]

L5s and Super 400s, as originally envisioned and produced, had 24 3/4” scale lengths….so let’s call the “Classical” scale length a later development in the archtop timeline.

Works for me. Why'd they change and standardize there? What about the Strat and Tele?

[Jazzjourney4Eva]

I’m 6’2”, have huge hands and play a Byrdland. There’s absolutely nothing “bunchy” about it. As mentioned several times now(and hard numbers between frets posted) the spacing between the frets is essentially like you’re starting on the 2nd fret on a 25.5. Do you struggle bunching your fingers up on a 25.5 scale guitar above the 2nd fret?

Also the most common scale lengths are between 24 3/4 - 25 1/2 with outliers on either side like the Byrd. There is no STANDARD scale length and further more to claim that one scale length is sonically superior to the other is just your anonymous opinion.

1. "Sonically superior"? No. More overtones, which is generally desirable - with some exceptions.
2. Some chords are awkward to grab no matter what.
3. Some are easy.
4. Some are more difficult on a long scale guitar than they are on a short (Johnny Smith's motivation?)
5. Some are more difficult on a short. (more than #4, for average to large hands).

[Jazzjourney4Eva]

Q: Why isn't the Byrdland scale more popular?
A: Because it's shorter than most players prefer.

The End.

Next!

[Chris236]

[sgosnell]

Tal Farlow was known for having very large hands. He modified one of his guitars by cutting off the fretboard at the first fret to make a short-scale guitar. I wonder why he did that.

TBH the scale length does make a difference in tone, if all are tuned to the same standard tuning, although the fret-to-fret distance difference may be imperceptible, a couple of thousandth of an inch or so. String tension does affect tone, and a short scale guitar has very low tension, unless the string scale is much larger than usual, and both tension and gauge affect tone.

[customxke]

Works for me. Why'd they change and standardize there? What about the Strat and Tele?

Because they didn't standardize there. You're already operating under a false premise. The ES175 has to be one of, if not the most utilized and recorded electric archtops for jazz, and its scale length is 24.75. The Ibanez George Benson GB10, which is also an iconic jazz archtop, is also 24.75. Same with the L4CES, which sold in numbers greater than the L5, to mostly jazz musicians. You seem to have it in your head that 25.5" is THE scale length, but that's just not the case. Stromberg's guitars, rivalled in status only by D'Angelico in legendary status, played around with scale length up until the end, quashing the idea of any scale length being an evolutionary end.