It will save generations of guitarists from having to play with raised palm position, and the notoriously frail LP headstock will be built with the correct 14 degree angle instead of the ridiculous fragile, tuning-destroying 17 degree they use now. You could also look at advising him on straight string pull, to allow less catching in the nut.
The headstock angle was 17 degrees from the start. That is one of the biggest single discussion topics about Les Pauls -- the "period correct" 17 degree headstock angle. I'm sure they guys at LPF would love for you to tell them that some other angle was originally used.
Yeah, you're right, that headstock angle is the guitar's achilles heal, no arguments there. As for "raised palm position" -- no clue what you're talking about. I play Jems, RGs, and Les Pauls everyday. I switch between them seamlessly. My palms aren't doing anything different between the two.
You can also inform les paul to leave notes that in the event of his death, gibson shall not release THIS abomination: http://www2.gibson.com/Products/Elec...bute-1952.aspx
Look at this guitar. See anything wrong? No? Look at the bridge. Does that look like it will ever be in any way even close to intonated correctly? I didn't think so.
I wouldn't need to inform Les of anything. That bridge wasn't his idea and he was against it from the very beginning (he had very little to do with the design of the guitar that bears his name). That's why it was fixed the very year after it first came out. The generations who played Les Pauls didn't have to worry about that bridge, because none of them played ones with them.
Or theres the les paul fretless wonders, which came with wide, low frets. Not a bad idea, you might think?
No, actually I think that's a horrible idea. Those Customs were intended for jazz back when guitars were primarily a rhythm instrument. No one bent any notes, and few in those settings ever had to venture up the "dusty" end of the fretboard for their chord work.
If you want to talk about Les Pauls that had some significance on rock music, I'd point out that the 59 and 60 'bursts actually had larger frets wires than what came before, Gibson Jumbos. That and their relatively flat radius (12 inch compared to Fender's 7.5 inch) is actually what made the popular with Bloomfield, Green, Clapton, etc.
Or you could go further and look at a Gibson SG...
No thanks. I don't care about SGs. As I'm sure you're aware, Les wanted his name off of those. I can't say I'm a fan either.
And thats not even getting started on the fact the gibson neck angle is a ridiculous 5 degrees, which raises the bridge off the body to a degree it has to be played claw style.
Go check out some old Les Pauls and tell me how far that bridge and tail piece are off the deck.
Modern production Les Pauls have this problem because Gibson is trying to build a luthier's instrument in a mass production factory. They cut corners. They don't use a full tenon which will help keep the neck angle constant.
I own a production Les Paul that has a bridge like this. Again, no idea about the "claw" stuff. I'm not radically altering how I play a Paul vs. how I play anything else. I don't usually rest my hand anywhere near the bridge though. That's the only thing I can imagine you're talking about.
Also, I never mentioned Ibanez in any way. Or shred. Ibanez guitars aren't without their flaws either, after all. Not least of which is the lack of a volute on the back of god knows how many necks, promoting sympathetic headstock vibrations which kill sustain, and of course the neck becomes tremendously easy to break. A problem that has only been solved relatively recently. I could go on. No non-custom guitar is ever going to be perfect and most customs won't be either, but theres a lot that could be fixed about a lot of guitars by design, and gibson are one of the worst offenders in that regard.
You and I are, ultimately, on the same page. My whole point was Nineteen fifty-two
. To use my favorite analogy of guitars vs. cars -- bad design or just a product of the era it was designed?