— 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
the fine print.
the review process:
scale range: 1.0 (lowest) —10.0 (highest)
Media will be experienced from start to completion before review.
The write up will be a reflection of the reviewer’s views of the media.
The rating (while extremely rarely negotiable) is set and locked once given. Changes are not permitted unless by Editor in Chief (Marcus Landeros), and only with good reason. Changes are not permitted by any outside forces. Please respect any rating once given. Multiple different ratings may be given to any one piece of media by different members of staff.
We review with the intent to guide our readers toward a more informed listening experience.
10.0 - perfection (achieved)
9.0 - excellent (in execution)
8.0 - really great (but falls just a bit short)
7.0 - great (with some minor setbacks)
6.0 - solid (with both good and bad)
5.0 - average (despite setbacks, keeps an identity)
4.0 - below average (some identity attained)
3.0 - poor (shows perhaps a bit of vision)
2.0 - bad (no good at all)
1.0 - awful (so so bad)
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 give both a subjective AND objective review. Finding the right balance between informative and expressive. We recognize there is a conflation between both styles and are happy to lean into it. Subjectivity will have a higher weight in our process as it is important to denote one’s taste in likes and dislikes and how they influence us. This is further covered in the “the goal” section below. We do promise to inspect the media to the best of our ability and remark on it as such. We will review others’ work in good faith as we do not wish to willfully tarnish anyone’s personal work and we will approach with earnestness and honesty. With that said, we want to have the freedom to review how we like. Any and all opinions of The Sagasu Review’s team remain that of our own.
Primarily, we wish to celebrate what moves us and have the curiosity to discuss what might or might not.
no tears!
the goal:
Here at The Sagasu Review we want to give reviews and thought-pieces first and foremost. Behind that we wish for our readers to engage with the staff and the greater community. We want The Sagasu Review to be a place where readers can visit, not for objective and homogeneous music reviews, but for personality-driven and subjective takes. We want our staff to have the freedom to be themselves and write as such. Doing this, we firmly believe our reviews and wider-site will offer people a more human way to connect with the content. The world is filled with AI-driven and nonhuman product, so we choose to counteract this reality with more personable and relatable content. We choose to embolden our staff with their own personal views and stances. We hope, with the stated ethics and given impetus, you will choose to trust us as a publication, as a reviews site and as an information catalogue of Japanese based media.
With all that uptight stuff out of the way…
We want to 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
