— info —
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 views of the media.
Once published, a rating is considered final. Changes are permitted only by the Editor in Chief, Marcus Landeros, and only when there is good reason to make one. 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 work that fully achieves its artistic vision. Exceptionally rare.
Outstanding in both vision and execution.
A remarkable work that falls just short of excellence.
A rewarding work with some noticeable setbacks.
A worthwhile work with a clear balance of strengths and weaknesses.
Maintains an identity, but leaves a limited overall impression.
Contains some worthwhile ideas, though its shortcomings prevail.
A deeply flawed work that shows traces of unrealized vision.
Fails in nearly every respect, with few redeeming qualities.
A thoroughly unsuccessful work.
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.
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 about what might or might not.
No tears!
The Goal
First and foremost, The Sagasu Review exists to publish reviews and thoughtful writing. 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 want 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. 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