The Four-Stance Theory

The Four-Stance Theory was originally conceived by Souichi Hiroto as a coaching method for athletes. He empirically systemized how athletes move and use their muscles anatomically, and constructed a theory on how to coach them most effectively based on their anatomical characteristics.

Hiroto (2014) observes that "the way a human being uses one's body is different for all. The most natural way to move without stress and difficulties depends on each person, and there are four types of people out there." Hiroto continues that these four types can be classified based on the position of one's body's center of gravity, or "the point where one's body is stable without wavering around during a movement": the position of one's center of gravity is either located in the front [Stance A] or in the rear [Stance B]. Similarly, Hiroto (2016) theorizes that the position of one's center of gravity can be categorized into either the inner [Stance 1] or the outer [Stance 2]. These classifications are summarized in Table 2.

When put together, one can be classified into one of the following four stances: "Stance A1," with the front and the inner center of gravity; "Stance A2," with the front and the outer; "Stance B1," with the rear and the inner; and "Stance B2," with the rear and the outer. Finally, Hiroto (2016) groups these four stances into two types: people of Stance A1 and B2 as "Cross-type," and people of Stance A2 and B1 as "Parallel type." Figure 1 summarizes all four stances and two types.

Figure 1. The Four Stance Matrix (Hiroto, 2014).

According to Hiroto, each stance and type has different characteristics of how they use their muscles most naturally, and the Four-Stance Theory applies these observations to athletic coaching. For instance, when coaching runners, Hiroto proposes that trainers should instruct A1 and A2 athletes to concentrate on putting the weight on the leg that comes forward, whereas B1 and B2 athletes should focus on pushing the body from the leg that is behind the body.

Previous Studies on the Four-Stance Theory

Hiroto published a series of empirical studies on the theory's efficacy in athletic coaching for several sports, including golf (2007a), baseball (2007b), and soccer (2009). Empirical research followed: Suwa and Nishiyama (2009) presented a theory on the importance of the meta-cognitive recognition of one's body for athletes, based on the Four-Stance Theory. Tanaka, Ishimoto, Hashimoto, Sano, and Hiroto (2010) tested the efficacy of a Four-Stance Theory-based coaching system with magnetic sensing feedback. Koikawa (2011) discussed the usefulness of the Four-Stance Theory in delivering more personalized coaching to female track runners. Otake, Ogihara, Toyoda, Abe, and Ota (2011) referred to the Four-Stance Theory during their discussion about their experimental results on the efficacy of baseball pitching coaching. Mitsui, Tang, and Obana (2015) proposed a wearable support system for improving golf swing and interpreted the experimental results with the characteristic motions of body regions presented in the Four-Stance Theory. Tateno and Honda (2016) tested the efficacy of the Four-Stance Theory in Kendo training through an experiment focusing on the striking time.

Over the past several years, numerous educators started to apply the Four-Stance Theory to music pedagogy. There are only a few empirical studies published on this subject to date: Furukawa, Masuda, and Nishiyama (2016) collected data from the observation of 46 cellists, to conduct clustering of cello playing style inspired by the Four-Stance Theory. Fujinami and Furukawa (2017) discussed the applicability of the Four-Stance Theory to the cello pedagogy further, while Hara (2019) tested the efficacy of the Four-Stance Theory on vocal training through experiment. However, there are currently no scientific publications on the Four-Stance Theory in piano pedagogy to our knowledge.

Hypothesis

To test this theory, we tested the following hypotheses: 2

Hypothesis 1. Parallel-type pianists favor tempo-driven composers over momentum-driven composers; the opposite applies to cross-type pianists.

Hypothesis 2. Parallel-type pianists feel more comfortable with playing the music of tempo-driven composers than that of momentum-driven composers; the opposite applies to cross-type pianists.

Hypothesis 3. Parallel-type pianists find it easier to understand tempo-driven composers' works than momentum-driven composers' works; the opposite applies to cross-type pianists.

If the evidence supports these hypotheses, piano teachers could be able to predict students' physiological fitness to perform certain composers' music based on their Stance Type. We hope that this will provide educators in the field with a simple yet practical method to understand students' physiological nature.

Experimental Design

To test the hypotheses, we conducted a paper-based survey that consisted of (a) physical tests to determine one's Stance Type and (b) a questionnaire on their opinions on composers (Appendix A). 3 Twenty volunteers (10 male and 10 female professional and university student pianists) aged between 20 and 30 agreed to participate in this experiment. We transmitted the survey sheet to individual research participants and collected the results electronically. The survey sheet used for this experiment is attached as Appendix A.

First, each research participant was asked to follow a series of physical test procedures established by Hiroto (2014). Tests I to III are used to determine their Front/Rear stance; tests IV to VI are used to determine their Inner/Outer stance. The decision table is attached as Appendix B.

Following the physical tests, each research participant was asked which composer they personally favor (Question 1) and feel most comfortable playing (Question 2). They were then asked to rank 13 composers from 1 to 13, with 1 being the composer whom they find easiest to understand (Question 3). In case a research participant named multiple composers for Question 1 or 2, only their first pick was recorded.

To avoid bias, research participants were not informed of what they were being tested for. They were also not informed of their Stance Types nor the classifications of any composers. None of the participants reported any prior knowledge of the Four-Stance Theory.

Testing

Chi-square tests of independence were performed to examine the relationship between the pianists' Stance Types and their preferred composers (Questions 1 and 2). Subsequently, the Mann-Whitney U-tests were conducted to compare the average rankings of composers (Question 3).

Stance Type

Out of the 20 research participants, four were identified as Stance A1, six as Stance A2, three as Stance B1, and seven as Stance B2. In terms of Cross/Parallel types, nine were Parallel-type and 11 were Cross-type. The raw survey results are attached as Appendix C.

Favorite Composers

For Question 1, a chi-square test of independence was performed to examine the relationship between pianists' Stance Type (Cross- or Parallel-type) and their favorite composer (momentum- or tempo-driven).

The relation between these two variables was significant (𝒳²= 5.69, df=1, N=20, p=.017). As shown in Figure 2, Parallel-type pianists were more likely to name a tempo-driven composer as their favorite (88.9% named a tempo-driven composer); Cross-type pianists were more likely to name a momentum-driven composer as their favorite (63.6% named a momentum-driven composer).

Figure 2. Favorite Composers: Parallel-type vs. Cross-type Pianists.

Comfortable Composers to Perform

For Question 2, a chi-square test of independence was performed to examine the relationship between pianists' Stance Type (Cross- or Parallel-type) and the type of composer they feel is most technically comfortable to perform (momentum or tempo-driven).

The relation between these two variables was significant (𝒳² = 9.90, df=1, N = 20, p =.002). As shown in Figure 3, Parallel-type pianists were more likely to name a tempo-driven composer (88.9% named a tempo-driven composer); Cross-type pianists were more likely to name a momentum-driven composer as a composer whose works they feel most technically comfortable playing (81.8% named a momentum-driven composer).

Figure 3. Pianists' Technical Comfortableness to Perform: Parallel-type vs. Cross-type Pianists.

Potential Value of the Four-Stance Theory in Piano Teaching

This study aimed to explore ways to provide teachers in the field with a simple yet practical solution to understand the physiological natures of their students. Judging by the results, this simple 10-minute physical test may have achieved this goal effectively.

The Cross/Parallel test (Appendix A: Tests I - VI) can easily be carried out in the field. This may open up a new pathway towards connecting traditional and physiological piano teaching methods. Recognizing a correlation between pianists' physiology and their affinities to certain composers would enable both teachers and students to plan better on how to approach pieces for which they are not a good fit. In other terms, the authors envision that this simple test could be useful for bringing physiological preparedness to both teachers and students.

Limitations

Due to the COVID-19 situation, the experiment was conducted remotely and the number of research participants was fairly limited due to budget constraints (n = 20). While every effort was made to improve the reliability of the experiment by avoiding bias, we welcome replication studies to ensure the replicability of the findings.

Another limitation may come from the subjectiveness of the classifications of composers (Table 1). While it is certainly subjective to a degree, the classification was carried out prior to this study and the authors were not involved in the classification process. Furthermore, research participants were not informed of the classification during the experiment. Therefore, the potential subjectiveness of the list does not create a bias, and, therefore, does not diminish the value of the findings.

One factor the authors did not consider in the statistical analysis is the effect of the number of composers on the probability of getting listed as the participant's favorite. It could be argued that there's a greater likelihood of listing a tempo-driven composer instead of a momentum-driven composer because there are nine of the former and only five of the latter (Table 1). However, we maintain that it is not a valid argument to presume the number of composers would dictate the frequency of getting picked. The list of momentum-driven composers includes popular composers like Beethoven and Schumann, and it is not reasonable to quantify the general probability of getting picked purely based on the number of composers. For this reason, what matters is whether there is a statistically significant difference between the frequencies between the Parallel-type and Cross-type pianists. Therefore, this is why the effect of the number of composers is neglected in the statistical analyses.

Finally, while this study showed correlations between pianists' Stance Types and their preferences for certain composers, the causalities between the two are still unexplored. This study did not investigate any mediator variables; therefore, it might also be possible that the Stance Type correlates with other physical features that are the actual predictors for their preferred composers. These points should be further investigated in future studies.

Concluding Question: Why do I like Schumann more than Chopin?

Over the years, we were told, "to love Schumann, you need to be crazy" – crazy for love, for music, for literature. People say you need to be temperamental because his pieces are happy in one moment and sad in another. So, authors have always questioned themselves; do I feel a special bond to Schumann because he is eccentric and so am I? Why is it difficult for me to play or to understand other composers like Chopin?

The result of this study sheds light on this lifelong question. In our experiment, Schumann's popularity was polarized between Cross-type and Parallel-type pianists (average ranking being 4.82 vs. 7.78, p < 0.05). This makes a stark contrast to Chopin, who was another polarized composer but in the opposite direction (7.55 vs. 3.89, p < 0.05). This contrast is illustrated in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Average Rankings for R. Schumann and F. Chopin: Parallel-type vs. Cross-type Pianists.

Figure 6 suggests that taste for music may be different physiologically for Cross-type and Parallel-type pianists, and Schumann might just happen to be a typical example of it. The R² value of a simple regression predicting Schumann's ranking (dependent variable) based on pianists' Cross/Parallel Type (predictor), is .235 (p < .05).