WODS & WROR Flip To All Christmas

David Tomm nostaticatall@charter.net
Wed Nov 14 14:52:31 EST 2007

If you use the original parameters of the oldies format today--songs 
had to be at least ten years old, then anything up to 1997 would be 
considered an "oldie."  Could you imagine WODS playing Celine Dion and 
Sugar Ray?

The format has well branded itself over the years.  It targeted the 
baby boomers, defined the music era as the late 50's to the early 70's 
with 64-68 being the core years, and rode the population wave through 
the extremely profitable 25-54 era without evolving or changing, and 
now it's riding off into the 55+ sunset.  Because of the marketing, the 
music of this era will always be known as "oldies."  That's why 
stations are dropping the term and re-positioning themselves as 
"classic hits" as they add newer material to it's playlists.

I find it wildly ironic that it was baby boomer programmers and GM's 
that killed off the big band and standards stations back in the 80's 
and 90's and transitioned them to "oldies", declaring that "no one 
wants to hear 40 year old music anymore" and "55+ doesn't spend any 
money."  Now that these same people are now aging into the 55+ demo and 
it's THEIR music that's disappearing from the airwaves, there's all 
sorts of whining and complaining..."baby boomers are different!"  Guess 
what, you're not.  Amazing how karma comes back to bite you in the 

-Dave Tomm
"Mike Thomas"

On Nov 14, 2007, at 1:43 PM, John Francini wrote:

> Can it not be argued that "oldies" is a moving target?  When I was 
> growing up, yes, "oldies" were indeed from the 50s and 60s during the 
> 70s and 80s. However, now that we're in the 00s, wouldn't "oldies" 
> translate to 70s and 80s -- i.e., no more than 30 years ago?
> In other words, "oldies" are a moving window into the past.  Or at 
> least that's how it has seemed to me over the past 30-something years 
> of radio listening.
> John
> On 14 Nov 2007, at 12:46, markwa1ion@aol.com wrote:
>> WODS may call itself an oldies station, but that's a farce in my 
>> opinion.  They seem more in love with disco, Captain & Tennille, and 
>> other '70s lame-o's than any kind of serious oldies from rock's first 
>> 10 years ('54 to '64).  Like where's the Chuck Berry, Little Richard, 
>> Buddy Holly, NYC doo-wop, or for that matter even pre-"Burnin' Love" 
>> Elvis already ?  The Beatles will probably be next on the chopping 
>> block as time marches on.
>> All Christmas music may be the only way this station even sticks its 
>> little toe into the '50s, seeing that they MIGHT play "A Christmas 
>> Song" by Nat King Cole.  When the jingle bells stop ringing, what's 
>> the chance that they (or any other station in Boston) is going to 
>> play "Send for Me", "Nature Boy", or any of the other outstanding 
>> work that Mr. Cole left behind ?
>> Nah, I just had better be happy with my CD's from Collectors' Choice, 
>> Rhino, and Bear Family because Boston Radio can't deliver the goods 
>> in REAL oldies anymore.  Despite a sizeable part of the population 
>> being 55+ (maybe the largest percentage in history?), it seems that 
>> the powers that be have decided that we don't bloody matter.  Or that 
>> we can be placated by '70s pop pablum masquerading as "oldies" when a 
>> lot of us were listening to hard rock or Celtic folk or entirely 
>> other things ... maybe even the real oldies ... during that decade of 
>> dubious musical value.
>> Ranting concluded.  Resuming Christmas shopping.
>> Mark Connelly - Billerica, MA

More information about the Boston-Radio-Interest mailing list