Is this just a visual thing? Are we such a basically conservative lot that the generally accepted proportions of the established and famous instruments have set our blinkers for what is now deemed acceptable?
Or is there a reasonable explanation based on balance, transmission of vibration, etc. that would segregate the more radical designs due to bad tonal qualities?
I guess this post sounds a little confrontational, it's not meant to be, its a genuinely interested (maybe naive) question that I think has to be asked at regular intervals.
eg: Tyler headstock: Euggh! Does the job but looks awful. design, aeshetics and balance of proportion are important, but maybe not from a tonal quality, maybe just a visual one.
I'm sure he's referring to the scale length.
Scale length = distance from nut of the neck to the saddles on the bridge.
The further from the neck pocket your bridge is (if it was already mounted), the further into the body you have to mount the neck.
If it's too far into the body you won't have good fret access or weight balance.
Maybe he could use a baritone neck and alter the body for a little deeper cut-away to keep a better body to neck weight balance and still keep fret access.
I've found guitars can get uncomfortable during a long set if there's not a good weight balance or of course too heavy over all.
+1 on the Tyler headstocks, hehe