Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Posts 1 to 25 of 53
  1. #1

    User Info Menu

    I've played a short scale on a Fender and it seemed okay, but that was a long time ago. My guitars have 24.75", 25" and 25.5" scales.

    Garland played like greased lightening. Will I be like him on a shorter scale Byrdland? Oh, wait. He was very fast on all of his guitars.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #2

    User Info Menu

    some people hate being cool and sounding awesome. it happens.

    it isn't my favorite scale in the world or anything, but i have plenty of capo experience, so the byrdland doesn't bug me at all. your left arm sitting closer to the body is more of an adjustment than the scale to me. i don't know that the short scale makes it darker or slinkier as i use super heavy strings to keep the tension up. if anything, it's one of my brighter guitars. all the maple and spruce and ebony. maybe that's where some of the perceived quickness comes from, not to mention the relatively thin body. still plenty versatile, though. it loves to rock.

    but they are somewhat rare and expensive gambles, so i understand the reticence and the slings and arrows from those who haven't really played one. they are very much a thing, and that thing just isn't going to be for everyone.

  4. #3

    User Info Menu

    I’ve owned 2 different Byrdlands 1969, and 1964 sharp cut.
    Beatiful guitars but the necks were both skinny width wise and to short of scale.
    I think a regular width and regular24&3/4” scale would have been a better option for Gibson. I prefer the long scale thin line Gibson L-5 CES models to the Byrdland overall.

  5. #4

    User Info Menu

    I've only played on one once; between the skinny width and the short scale it seemed a bit cramped up high. But I have big hands for a smaller guy. The slim *body* felt great.

  6. #5

    User Info Menu

    I've played one, a later 60s sharp cut and I really liked it. Lots of room to me but....
    I play 5 string violin and mandolin so anything seems more spacious.

  7. #6

    User Info Menu

    Because it’s unnecessarily short. Grown men generally don’t need it.

    Longer scales sound better too, so it has a few things going against it.

  8. #7

    User Info Menu

    The internet scuttlebutt. Shorter scale: harder to tune; harder to hit harmonics.

    Nevertheless, a Byrdland is fabulous.

  9. #8

    User Info Menu

    I had the Epiphone Elite version when it came out, but sold it a few months later. Great guitar, but my big hands were not happy above the ninth fret, not happy at all.

  10. #9

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob MacKillop View Post
    I had the Epiphone Elite version when it came out, but sold it a few months later. Great guitar, but my big hands were not happy above the ninth fret, not happy at all.
    +1
    I had exactly the same experience with Epi ....

  11. #10

    User Info Menu

    23.5" scale?! Never heard of it! I had a strat mini once which are 22.75" scale. Really skanky, changes the tone a lot. But since I tune down now, there's no reason for me to use short scale guitars. Just stick to my Fenders with more room.

  12. #11

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jads57 View Post
    I prefer the long scale thin line Gibson L-5 CES models to the Byrdland overall.
    I concur. A handful of thinline Heritage versions are out there as well, all custom orders. I know you've not had a Heritage you liked, but I suspect these versions got more attention to detail because of their custom-order status. I'm very pleased with mine. I find the Byrdland depth noticeably more comfortable compared to my deeper archtops. Byrdland depth combined with either 24 3/4" or 25 1/2" scale seems like an ideal combination.
    Attached Images Attached Images Why isn't the Byrdland scale more popular?-rims_1976x-jpg 
    Last edited by Hammertone; 10-20-2021 at 09:26 AM.

  13. #12

    User Info Menu

    I suspect I'd like it .. But I have fairly small hands ... Sure I can play my 26.5 inch oval hole gypsy guitar just fine, but have no need to act macho .. Hand size and dick size do not correlate.


    I really like my 24.5 inch scale PRS Starla... I'd love to test drive a Gibson Byrdland, but they're impossible to find these days in my part of the world
    Last edited by Lobomov; 10-17-2021 at 05:01 AM.

  14. #13

    User Info Menu

    I've owned 2 of them, a 1960 blonde/Bigsby and a 1968 sharpcut sunburst - the narrow and short neck on both was eventually responsible that they didn't stay and are not missed. I commend Anthony Wilson on his great tone and obvious ease with which he plays his Byrdland. James Blood Ulmer's tone never inspired me though ....
    When I ordered my Victor Baker some 10 years ago I specifically had it built with the 2,5" rims like the Byrdland but with a 25" scale and a "normal" width neck. That guitar was my main stage tool for many years until I got the 16" Trenier Jazz Special and subsequently passed it on.
    And yes, they are very rare and expensive , not easy to sell.

  15. #14

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Alder Statesman View Post
    The internet scuttlebutt. Shorter scale: harder to tune; harder to hit harmonics.

    Nevertheless, a Byrdland is fabulous.
    People actually said those same things before anyone knew what the internet was and it's all true. It's a great guitar but but not for everyone.

  16. #15

    User Info Menu

    When I read the title, I thought the Byrdland scale was something akin to the Bebop scale.

  17. #16

    User Info Menu

    I find the scale very comfortable — I have had it copied for a high-A 7-string guitar — but the fingerboard on the Byrdland is too narrow for me. With wider string spacing the short scale works very well.

  18. #17

    User Info Menu

    Playing a Birdland is like trying to take shower in the kitchen sink............ I cannot seem to get my head under the facet without a lot of work.

  19. #18

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Soloway View Post
    People actually said those same things before anyone knew what the internet was and it's all true. It's a great guitar but but not for everyone.
    so it's not great....
    sorry Jim it is a joke...

  20. #19

    User Info Menu

    I must cheer all lovers of this short scale guitar.
    Sometimes I regret selling this guitar ..
    After practicing the guitar with a normal scale, I would play a short scale guitar.
    Then the muscles rest and the fingers relax...so I/ve got short scale clasical guitar.

  21. #20

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pcjazz View Post
    I find the scale very comfortable — I have had it copied for a high-A 7-string guitar — but the fingerboard on the Byrdland is too narrow for me. With wider string spacing the short scale works very well.
    I've owned lots of short scale guitars. I think they work west with a 1.75" scale length.

  22. #21

    User Info Menu

    You know what they say about a guy with big hands and big fingers?

    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

    Big nostrils.

  23. #22

    User Info Menu

    Short scale also has a different tone that’s freaking awesome.


  24. #23

    User Info Menu

    I once borrowed a Byrdland for a gig and I loved the scale length (and very low string tension). But I did find the pickups to be a bit to close together and I kept hitting the neck pickup with my pick. I think I could get used to that, but the price has been an obstacle. I have sixteen guitars. Eight are 24.75, Six are 25.5 and two are 26.25. While I can adapt to each one, I like the 24.75 the best and I suspect I would like the 23.75 scale of the Byrdland the best if I had one. Current prices of Gibson archtops makes my getting one anytime soon unlikely.

    Reading the comments in this thread informs me that I am a contrarian and that is probably why the 23.75 scale never made it in the pantheon of guitar production. Most guitarists, it seems, do not like it.

    And for the record, my hands while not large, are above average in size. Until playing the guitar with your dick is a thing, discussions regarding dick size are probably best left out of this thread. Just sayin'

  25. #24

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Soloway View Post
    I've owned lots of short scale guitars. I think they work west with a 1.75" scale length.
    Nut width?

  26. #25

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Stringswinger View Post
    I once borrowed a Byrdland for a gig and I loved the scale length (and very low string tension). But I did find the pickups to be a bit to close together and I kept hitting the neck pickup with my pick. I think I could get used to that, but the price has been an obstacle. I have sixteen guitars. Eight are 24.75, Six are 25.5 and two are 26.25. While I can adapt to each one, I like the 24.75 the best and I suspect I would like the 23.75 scale of the Byrdland the best if I had one. Current prices of Gibson archtops makes my getting one anytime soon unlikely.

    Reading the comments in this thread informs me that I am a contrarian and that is probably why the 23.75 scale never made it in the pantheon of guitar production. Most guitarists, it seems, do not like it.

    SS
    It is surprising to me that the Byrdland is not popular, when we consider that some very accomplished players used one eg Anthony Wilson,
    Barry Galbraith, Billy Byrd ,Hank Garland ,Jimmy Page and Jimi Hendrix etc.,
    I acquired my new Crimson Custom 2013 after a wait watching in thope for a price drop, eventually it was reduced by £2k and I secured it.
    It is a keeper for me, and ideal when tired hands syndrome happens, Perhaps not ideal for those with larger hands , but it has a very
    good tone and it is comfortable to play standing or seated.
    Silverfoxx
    Last edited by silverfoxx; 10-17-2021 at 07:15 PM.