A duet built for the colder months arrives with a C grade
The Bias List published its review of Crush's 'Seesaw' (삐그덕) featuring IU on 21 October 2026, and landed on a grade of C with an overall score of 7.25. The track had been trailed in advance, with our earlier reporting noting that the digital single was due on 21 October at 6 p.m. KST, following a teaser for his digital single 'seesaw' that showed Crush in the studio.
What makes the review worth reading beyond the letter grade is the pairing itself. Crush and IU are two of the most immediately identifiable voices in Korean popular music, and the song they have made together is deliberately unhurried. The Bias List's Nick is upfront that the combination of those two names is the only reason the track crossed his desk at all, and equally upfront that he found the result pleasant without expecting to go back to it.
That tension — obvious craft and obvious vocal quality, set against a critic's honest lack of appetite for the style — runs through the whole piece.
What the review hears in the song
The description is specific. 'Seesaw' is characterised as soft, meandering and jazzy, a track that settles rather than builds, and one that finishes on a run of 'doo doo doos' that the reviewer likens to a lullaby. The word that recurs is tasteful: nothing here is garish, oversung or clumsily arranged.
The word that complicates it is unobtrusive, which in a review like this carries a sting, because a song that never asks for attention is also a song that struggles to earn a second play in a crowded library.
Crucially, the criticism is not aimed at the performances. The review credits both singers with voices capable of teasing character out of thin material, and says plainly that they do what they can with what they are given. For anyone deciding whether to press play, that is the most useful sentence in the piece: this is not a case of an underpowered vocal or a mismatch between duet partners. It is a disagreement about the material and its register, not about who is singing it.
Reading the scorecard: hooks high, staying power more modest
The Bias List breaks its scores into categories before giving a final mark, and the shape of these numbers is revealing. Hooks take an 8, production a 7, longevity a 7 and the reviewer's own 'bias' category a 7, producing the 7.25 overall and the C grade. The hooks score is the highest of the four, which sits awkwardly beside the review's talk of background music — melodic material can be strong while a whole song still fails to demand repeats.
Longevity at 7 lines up neatly with the closing admission that the reviewer cannot see himself returning to the track. A C paired with 7.25 reads as a lukewarm verdict rather than a demolition, and the prose matches that: the song is called pleasant, tasteful and well made, not bad. Readers who treat letter grades as a simple thumbs up or down will misread this one.
It is a considered 'not for me, but done properly', and the reasoning is set out clearly enough that a listener can decide whether the reasoning applies to them.
Why 'pleasant' reads as faint praise here
In pop criticism, pleasantness is a loaded word. It can mean a song is inoffensive and accomplished, or it can mean the writer found nothing to grip. The Bias List review leans towards the second reading while conceding the first, and the phrase that does the most work is the comparison to background music for a more interesting activity. That is not a claim about quality so much as a claim about function: the song does not compete for the room.
The review is also transparent about where its judgment comes from. Nick states his general lack of use for this kind of song, and says he would have skipped it entirely were it not for the calibre of the two names involved. That disclosure matters when weighing the grade.
A listener who actively wants soft, jazzy duets at low volume is being told exactly what the record offers; they are simply being told by someone who does not share the appetite, which is a different thing from being told the song is poorly made.
The chart argument, and the winter timing behind it
The most interesting passage in the review is not about the music at all. It argues that a sleepy duet between these two artists would have been an instant number one in the 2010s, and that both retain enough public affection to make it almost as big in 2026. That is the reviewer's assessment rather than a measured result: this reporting does not include streaming or chart figures, and nothing published alongside the review substantiates the comparison.
It is still a useful frame for thinking about how a track like this is received. The review ties its prediction to the season, noting that winter is approaching and that colder months tend to favour slower, comfier listening.
Whether or not 'Seesaw' performs the way the review imagines, the point stands that a song's commercial profile and its critical reception can move in opposite directions — a record can be perfectly placed for the mood of a season while still leaving a given critic cold.
Who should actually try it
Stripped of the score, the practical description is clear enough to act on. 'Seesaw' is a duet with no big belt, no drop and no obvious crescendo, closing on a nursery-rhyme refrain rather than a showstopper. Listeners who come to collaborations for vocal contrast and vocal texture will find plenty; listeners who want the two artists to push each other into something louder will not.
For anyone assembling slow, cold-weather listening alongside releases such as the picks in our round-up of six solo K-pop tracks for autumn, it fits the mood rather than fighting it.
The Korean title is worth noting for anyone searching the track out — 삐그덕, printed alongside the English word 'Seesaw' — but the review's attention is squarely on the English-language framing and the lullaby close, not on wordplay in the lyrics. Those who know IU's catalogue will find her here in a restrained register, and our IU artist profile is a reasonable starting point for anyone wanting the wider picture before deciding.
The takeaway
Crush and IU's 'Seesaw' has been reviewed as a tasteful, well-sung, deliberately quiet duet that one critic admired more than he enjoyed, receiving a C and 7.25 from The Bias List. The disagreement on show is about purpose, not competence: a song designed to sit gently in the background has been judged by a listener who wants music to demand something of him.
If you want soft, jazzy company for the colder evenings, the review tells you precisely what you are getting — and lets you disagree with the grade.
We will keep following how the track is received as the season turns, and whether listeners hear a quiet highlight or well-mannered filler.
