— info —
The Goal
First and foremost, The Sagasu Review exists to publish reviews and thoughtful writing about music from Japan. Beyond that, we hope to encourage our readers to engage with our staff, with one another and with the wider community surrounding Japanese music.
We do not want to offer objective, homogeneous criticism. We strive for personality-driven and subjective perspectives, written by people who are free to sound like themselves.
We believe this creates a more human way to connect with music, with each other. In a world increasingly filled with AI-driven and impersonal content, we choose to make something personal, deliberate and recognizably human.
Our writers are encouraged to bring their own views, histories and convictions to their work. With the principles described here, we hope to earn your trust as a publication, a review site and an evolving catalogue of music from Japan.
With all that uptight stuff out of the way…
We want to get passionate about our current favorite things, and we want to have a blast doing it.
Join us here at The Sagasu Review for a really cool time, and stay for as long as you like.
The Sagasu Review Team
The Ethics
Our writing comes from a place of genuine enthusiasm. We believe criticism works best when it is honest, thoughtful and rooted in curiosity rather than cynicism.
We aim to balance the subjective and the objective: to be informative without sacrificing personality or expression. We recognize that the two approaches naturally overlap, and we are happy to lean into that tension.
Subjectivity carries particular weight in our process. A reviewer’s tastes, preferences and personal experiences inevitably shape how a work is received. Rather than disguising those influences, we believe they should be acknowledged and encouraged. We believe reviewing music is not a science to be marked and tallied.
We promise to engage with every work to the best of our ability and to discuss it in good faith. We do not wish to willfully tarnish another person’s work, and we approach criticism with earnestness, care and honesty.
At the same time, our writers must remain free to express their genuine opinions. The views published by members of The Sagasu Review belong to the individual writers themselves.
Primarily, we wish to celebrate what moves us and to remain curious to search for more.
No tears!
The Review Process
Scale range: 1.0 (lowest) - 10.0 (highest)
Media will be experienced from start to completion before review.
Each write-up reflects the reviewer’s own opinions of the media.
Once published, a rating is considered final. Changes are permitted only by the Editor-in-Chief, Marcus Landeros, and only, extremely rarely, with proper reason. Ratings will not be changed in response to outside pressure. We ask that readers respect each rating once it has been given.
Different members of staff may assign different ratings to the same work. Each review represents the individual reviewer’s experience and judgment.
We review with the intent of guiding our readers toward a more informed listening experience.
A walk through each score:
Our ratings are weighted from the center, then outwards. 5.0 is the middle ground from which experiences rise or fall. From here the rating system gives increasing friction. The closer the score comes to the periphery, the more difficult it will be to justify the score.
4.0 - 6.0 are easily achieved. They are middling works that struggle to achieve their vision. The scale finds much less resistance in this area.
3.0 and 7.0 begin to meet the friction of the scale. Here the work must justify itself more and more, positively or negatively.
2.0 and 8.0 become truly notable experiences for the site. 8.0 becomes a truly notable or favorite experience of the reviewer and site. While not perfect, they are works we thoroughly recommend are worth your time. 2.0 achieves an inverse notoriety from the site.
1.0 and 9.0 are fringe cases that become increasingly difficult to achieve, even at their respective extreme ends. Each decimal point is a true reward. A 9.0 is a clear mark of exceptionalism. The work becomes worth more than just its means, it becomes seminal. A long and well regarded work. Meanwhile, a 1.0 will be increasingly difficult to obtain. The closer to the bottom, the more deep and terrible the flaws must be.
0.0 and 10.0 should only ever come to the site in a lighting strike. Truly unique, one-of-a-single-kind experiences.
A work that fully achieves its artistic vision by being groundbreaking in construction and execution. Exceptionally rare.
The work is exceptional and one-of-a-kind. Regarded for only the best albums, for both the reviewer and the site.
A hallmark work. While it may not be a groundbreaking experience, these works are meant to be favorites among the site.
A rewarding work with some noticeable setbacks. Notable parts of this work elevate it above its detracting factors.
A conflicted experience. While its positives may leave a lasting impression, the drawbacks are glaring.
Maintains an identity, but fails to outweigh its negative aspects with the positive. The result is a flat experience.
Contains some interesting ideas, though its shortcomings prevail. Vision is outclassed by poor execution.
A deeply flawed work that shows traces of unrealized vision. An actively poor experience, but manages to have some semblance of a vision.
Fails in nearly every respect, with few redeeming qualities. This becomes a hallmark of worst works viewed by the site.
A thoroughly unsuccessful work. Little to zero positive aspects are present. Must be a truly special experience.
Experiencing this album is true pain. The work must be so poor it becomes blatantly antagonistic.