Revivalist, parody, homage, piss-take? I still have no idea really. Think they have their influences that they obviously honour, a genre that should always not be taken too seriously, but then try to be so tongue in cheek with the humour that it starts to grate really quickly. Which sums up their careers, they being the poster boys in Britain for a shooting star rise and abrupt fall. They are competent, the production is decades developed from the music they ape, Hawkins has the skill to do that vocal (though whether he should is another thing). Just surprised this is on the list, it’s so inessential, someone else in their review mentioned quotas for genre and decades and it just feels like that, are the acts they copy on the list, I would presume so but have a feeling they may not and this is all very post modern. Most acts, especially at the beginning show their influences, but take it on to something else. This just feels too much like a jokey parody, or worst for all involved that by 2003 if this was all, then hard rock had just run it’s course and nothing new or relevant was left in the cupboard.