I am working at the Academy of Music in Oslo, where I have been teaching the LCC for a few years. I have created an elective course, and I have also taught it as part of the bachelor program for one semester at a time. Recently I experienced, as many others before me, resistance from a theory colleague who holds some influence within the system. Their main argument against including the Concept for bachelor students was this:

“I have read a bit in the book, and attended a one-hour talk with Andy Wasserman when he visited our school, and I still don’t understand it and cannot explain to others what it’s about.”

For comparison: my own engagement with the Concept consists of several years of self-study, followed by almost two years of intensive weekly lessons with Andy Wasserman. (If you don’t already know, Andy worked closely with George Russell for several decades and is today the world’s leading expert on the Concept. He is also the only one authorized to certify new teachers. I am now a certified teacher myself.)

My colleague added:

“Some students have said they find it difficult, with too many new terms to learn.”

Based on this, I had the clear impression that they want to exclude the Concept from the bachelor-level theory curriculum.

This skepticism is not new. Russell himself faced it repeatedly, and many of Andy’s top students around the world encounter similar resistance in their institutions. Perhaps it reflects a fear of the unknown—especially from highly skilled musicians with a strong theoretical background who feel they should understand it. But it cannot be a qualified opinion about the Concept, since they haven’t actually studied it.

I had a good, direct—though a bit heated—discussion with my colleague, and luckily we are still friends. I am open to teaching the Concept in a different form than I have for bachelor students, and I even think that could be an improvement. The exam situation has often stressed the students unnecessarily, which for me is problematic. I have felt it blocks their openness to the new ideas. The scope of the knowledge is so vast that in a single semester we can only scratch the surface.

So why insist on keeping it as part of what we offer our students at the Academy? What does the Concept bring that is so valuable?

I have no short answer(*), but here are some core points:

1. Historical significance

There should be no doubt about the Concept’s importance in jazz history. Russell’s ideas were sparked by Miles Davis, who in turn was so inspired that he changed the entire direction of jazz, leading directly to the modal period. Pioneers like Eric Dolphy, Bill Evans, John Coltrane and Jan Garbarek were influenced by Russell. He was an active part of one of the most creatively explosive musical environments of modern times. The Concept is also the only complete theoretical system to emerge from jazz—created by and for improvising musicians, but relevant far beyond jazz.

2. Tonal Gravity and verticality

The discovery of Tonal Gravity as the most fundamental universal force in music opens a vertical dimension of understanding. Functional harmony works well for describing horizontal music, but it does not account for verticality. Composers like Debussy and Ravel represent music with strong vertical elements, while Bach balances both dimensions, and Mozart is mostly horizontal. Understanding these parallel dimensions alone is reason enough to include the Concept in basic theory teaching—if nothing else, it deepens our understanding of the major scale and helps us listen in new ways.

3. A natural, creative system

The Concept provides a logical, sonically grounded system for exploring music through improvisation, composition and listening. The idea of close-to-distant relationships to a tonal center—the center of tonal gravity—and the scales that describe that journey is a brilliant discovery, offering endless possibilities for creative exploration. The concept of scale “parenthood,” where scales are the birthplace of chords, lines and harmonic colors, is another stroke of genius. Instead of restricting performers with rules and “avoid notes,” it opens up freedom and creativity.

4. Objectivity and universality

Most music theory tools are designed to describe and recreate particular styles, often based on specific composers or improvisers. There is nothing wrong with that—it can be inspiring and useful. But the LCC is unique in striving to be objective, pan-stylistic, and open to any genre. It supports the development of personal expression, even completely new ones. This is not just wishful thinking; it has been demonstrated through analysis of Bach, Ravel, Webern, Coltrane, and even the Beatles.

(*) Andy gave me a short answer actually, which sums it up in a brilliant way: The LCCOTO is not just a theoretical framework; it fundamentally changes how musicians perceive, listen and create music. It spotlights tonal gravity and the Lydian Tonic as a central organizing principle, providing students a fresh perspective on composition, improvisation, and analysis through the unifying force of both vertical and horizontal musical behavior applicable to any genre.

So, why is it not a part of the curriculum in universities around the world?

Perhaps simply because there is no consensus. It represents a completely new way to look at music, it takes a long time to learn, and there are simply too few of us who have made the effort. Yet.

But there are also several other reasons worth considering:

1. Complexity and scope

The Concept is vast and multi-layered. It requires long-term study, patience, and a willingness to gradually rewire one’s understanding of harmony. Most curricula are designed for shorter, modular courses that can be “completed” within a semester or two. The LCC does not fit well into this format.

2. Lack of qualified teachers

At present, very few people worldwide are certified or deeply trained to teach the Concept. Institutions tend to adopt theories that already have a wide base of teachers and textbooks. Without a critical mass of qualified educators, it is difficult for the LCC to spread.

3. Institutional inertia

Academia often operates conservatively. Once a curriculum is established and approved, change happens slowly. Introducing something as paradigm-shifting as the LCC requires not only academic openness, but also administrative will — and both are often lacking.

4. Misconceptions and superficial encounters

Many who reject the LCC have only skimmed the book, attended a brief lecture, or heard second-hand opinions. Without direct and sustained study, the Concept can appear unnecessarily complicated, esoteric, or even “mystical.” This lack of deep engagement fosters skepticism.

5. Clash with traditional frameworks

Western music theory is strongly tied to functional harmony and stylistic analysis. The LCC introduces a different foundation — tonal gravity, verticality, pan-stylistic principles — which can feel threatening to those whose expertise and authority rest on traditional frameworks.

6. Assessment challenges

Educational systems rely heavily on exams, standardized testing, and measurable outcomes. The LCC, however, is not easily reduced to simple right/wrong answers. It is about perception, listening, creativity, and gradual internalization — all harder to assess conventionally.

7. Limited publishing and accessibility

Russell’s book is dense, expensive, and not as widely available or user-friendly as standard theory textbooks. Without more accessible introductory materials, many teachers and students are discouraged before they begin.

8. Cultural bias

Music theory in higher education has historically been dominated by Eurocentric models. Since the LCC originated in the jazz tradition, some institutions may (consciously or unconsciously) devalue it compared to “classical” theoretical systems.

9. Fear of irrelevance

If the LCC were to be widely adopted, it could challenge or even displace traditional theory teaching. For some, this represents a professional threat — to their expertise, authority, or even job security.

Australian pianist and music theorist Mark Hannaford has even argued that its neglect may be linked to structural racism, in his 2021 article “Fugitive music theory and George Russell’s theory of tonal gravity” — for which he received the Society for Music Theory’s Emerging Scholar Award in 2023.

I strongly believe in the Concept’s potential and importance. I will continue to teach and promote it as much as I can. Hopefully, in time, it will gain the broader understanding and rightful place it deserves in our common musical knowledge.