How Can I Tell Her Song Meaning? 102 Most Correct Answers

American singer-songwriter

musical artist

Roland Kent LaVoie (born July 31, 1943), better known by his stage name Lobo (the Spanish word for wolf), is an American singer-songwriter who achieved success in the 1970s and achieved several US Top 10 hits, including “Me and You and a Dog Named Boo,” “I’d Be Happy If You Want Me,” and “Don’t Expect Me To Be Your Boyfriend.”[1] These three songs, along with “Where Were You When I Was Falling in Love,” gave Lobo four top rankings on the Easy Listening/Hot Adult Contemporary chart.

Career [edit]

1961–1970: Early years[edit]

LaVoie was born in Tallahassee, Florida and grew up with his six siblings with his mother in Winter Haven, Florida. He began his musical career in 1961 as a member of a local band, The Rumors. The band included Gram Parsons and Jim Stafford, and drummer Jon Corneal, who later joined Parsons’ International Submarine Band.

In 1964, while attending the University of South Florida, LaVoie joined a band called the Sugar Beats and met producer Phil Gernhard. He recorded a regional hit for the band, a cover of Johnny Rivers’ song “What Am I Doing Here?”

During the 1960s, LaVoie performed with many other bands, including US Male, The Uglies, and Me and the Other Guys. In the latter band he met musician Billy Aerts, who became a member of Lobo’s touring band in the early 1970s and produced Lobo’s 1989 comeback album.

Again in collaboration with Gernhard, his first solo record was released in 1969 on Laurie Records. It contained the original tracks “Happy Days in New York City” backed by “My Friend Is Here”.

1971–1975: Success with Big Tree[edit]

In 1971, LaVoie called himself Lobo (Spanish for wolf). Gernhard was an executive at Big Tree Records, and the company released his first single, Me and You and a Dog Named Boo, in March 1971. 4 in the UK through May and launches a successful string of singles. It sold over a million copies and was certified gold in September 1971.[2]

His debut album “Introducing Lobo” was released in May 1971. His second single “She Didn’t Do Magic” was released in June. In September, California Kid and Reemo was released, followed by The Albatross. When Big Tree Records merged with Bell Records, Lobo’s second project album Close Up was never released.

He then released Of a Simple Man under the alias Lobo in 1972, which contained consecutive US Top 10 hits including “I’d Love You to Want Me” (No. 2, November 18–25, 1972). and “Don’t Expect Me to be Your Friend” (No. 8, February 17–24, 1973). The former became Lobo’s biggest hit, a million-seller, achieving Gold Disc status in November 1972[2] and reaching No. 1 internationally in Germany in December 1973 and No. 5 in the UK in July 1974.

With the release of Calumet in 1973, Lobo had three more Top 40 hits: “It Sure Took A Long, Long Time,” “How Can I Tell Her,” and “Standing at the End of the Line.” That year he appeared on American Bandstand. There were two other minor hit singles from the album: “There Ain’t No Way” and “Love Me for What I Am”.

In June 1974, Lobo’s fourth album Just a Singer was released. It was Lobo’s first album to feature tracks not written by him. The only single from the album was “Rings”. “Don’t Tell Me Goodnight” became his last Top 30 single for Big Tree in 1975. Lobo also released the album A Cowboy Afraid of Horses, with “Would I Still Have You” being released as a single. The label followed that year with a compilation album entitled The Best of Lobo.

1976-1985: Curb Records and move to Nashville

In 1976 Lobo broke away from Big Tree and released the album Come with Me in Europe on the Philips label. “At First Sight” and “It’s Everywhere” were the singles. Neither was released in the US.

Lobo signed to Curb Records in 1977 and released the single “Afterglow”, co-produced by Lobo and Gernhard, and “You Are All I’ll Ever Need” in 1978. No full-length album resulted from these sessions.

In 1979, Lobo was signed to Curb/MCA Records where he worked with producer Bob Montgomery and released the single “Where Were You When I Was Falling in Love”, which peaked at #23. The song also peaked at number 1 on the Adult Contemporary chart. He also released his first US album in four years, Lobo. Other singles for Curb included “Holding On for Dear Love”, “With a Love Like Ours” and “Fight Fire with Fire”.

Reportedly dissatisfied with the production of his records, Lobo sought a release from his Curb contract. He moved to Nashville and founded his own label, Lobo Records, in 1981 and released several singles including I Don’t Want to Want You (written by his brother Roger LaVoie), Come Looking for Me and Living My Life Without You,” all of which hit the country charts. He also released “Bull Smith Can’t Dance the Cotton Eye Joe” with the group Wolfpack, which also included Narvel Felts and Kenny Earl.

Lobo Records was renamed Evergreen Records in 1985. The label released two of his singles: “Am I Going Crazy” and “Paint the Town Blue”, the latter a duet with Robin Lee.

1987–present: Asian popularity and final years

Although he is far less followed in the United States today, Lobo’s popularity grew in Asia, fueled by the release of his greatest hits compilations in 1987 and 1988. This encouraged him to release his first new album in 10 years in 1989, titled To publish on I’m going crazy. It was recorded in Taiwan by UFO/WEA Records and produced by Billy Aerts. He signed a multi-album deal with PonyCanyon Records in Singapore and released Asian Moon in 1994, repackaging some of the tracks from Am I Going Crazy along with newly recorded material. His follow-up album Classic Hits from 1995 were re-recordings of Lobo hits and some covers. In 1996 he released the album “Sometimes” which contained all new original songs.

On another Asian label, Springroll Entertainment, in 1997 he released You Must Remember This, a pop standards album released in two formats, one with vocals and the other with instrumental tracks.

In 2000, Lobo signed with a German record company, Gmbh Entertainment, and recorded some tracks for various hit CDs. He also co-wrote two Christmas songs with Billy Aerts, “A Big Kid’s Christmas” and “Late Christmas Eve”, which have been released on various Christmas compilations from 2000 to the present. Singles recorded during this period include “Let It Be Me”, “Who’ll Stop the Rain” and “Different Drum”.

In 2006, due to his popularity in Asia, he toured Southeast Asia. In 2008 Lobo released Out of Time with old favorites and some new songs. A tribute album to the original era of early Lobo recordings has been made available on the website.

Discography[ edit ]

Albums [ edit ]

Compilations[ edit ]

1975 The Best of Lobo (Big Tree)

(Big Tree) 1990 Greatest Hits (bridle)

(Curb) 1993 The Best Of Lobo (Rhino)

(Rhino) 1996 The Best Of Lobo (Curb)

(Curb) 1996 I’d Love It If You Wanted Me (Rhino)

(Rhino) 1997 Me & You & a Dog Called Boo & Other Hits (Rhino)

(Rhino) 2004 The Very Best Of Lobo (WEA International)

(WEA International) 2005 Introduction of Lobo / Of a Simple Man (Wounded Bird)

(Wounded Bird) 2005 Platinum Collection

2006 Ultimate Collection (EMI) Malaysia

(EMI) Malaysia 2006 Me & You & a Dog Named Boo & Other Hits (Collectibles)

(Collectibles) 2007 Greatest Hits (Lobo Records)

single [edit]

US chart is Billboard unless otherwise noted. * Single chart from Cash Box.[5]

project page

This page is about using Wikipedia as a citation for yourself. For criticism of Wikipedia’s reliability to readers, see Wikipedia: Why Wikipedia Isn’t That Great. For information on how to cite Wikipedia as a source in an academic setting, see Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia. As a user-generated source, it can be edited by anyone at any time, and any information it contains at any given time may be vandalism, work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living people, subjects that happen to be in the news, and subjects that are politically or culturally controversial are particularly prone to these problems. Erroneous edits on Wikipedia can eventually be fixed. However, since Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot constantly monitor every contribution. There are many bugs that go unnoticed for hours, days, weeks, months, or even years (see Wikipedia: List of hoaxes on Wikipedia). Also, some bugs may never be fixed. As such, Wikipedia should not be considered the definitive source in and of itself. This includes articles, non-article pages, The Signpost, and non-English Wikipedias.

The same applies to Wikipedia’s sister projects, such as Wiktionary and Wikimedia Commons, as well as sites that mirror or source it itself, and printed books or other material derived primarily or entirely from Wikipedia articles; see WP:CIRCULAR for instructions.

Wikipedia pages often cite reliable secondary sources that verify data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (that you wish to cite as a source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and the middleman (or in this case, the “middle page “) to eliminate. . Always be careful what you read: it might not always be accurate. Neither articles on Wikipedia nor websites mirroring Wikipedia can be used as sources as this is circular sourcing. An exception to this is when Wikipedia is discussed in an article, which may cite an article, policy, discussion, statistic, or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as the primary source in support of a statement about Wikipedia (with an excessive emphasis is avoided). role or views of Wikipedia and inappropriate self-reference).

Articles are only as good as the editors who edited them – their interests, education and background – and the effort they put into a given topic or article. Because we try to avoid original research, a particular article can only be as good as (a) the available and discovered reliable sources and (b) the subject matter. Since the vast majority of editors are anonymous, you only have their editing history and their user pages as benchmarks. Of course, Wikipedia gives no information on their truth. Additionally, Wikipedia is collaborative by nature, and individual articles may be the work of one or more contributors over different time periods. The quality and content of articles varies widely and inconsistently, and also depends on the quality of the sources (and their authors, editors, and publishers) referenced and/or linked. Circumstances may have changed since the changes were added.

Occasionally, inexperienced editors accidentally cite the Wikipedia article about a publication instead of the publication itself; In these cases, correct the citation instead of removing it. Although citing Wikipedia as a source is against policy, content can be copied between articles with proper attribution. see WP:COPYWITHIN for instructions.

Essay on Editing Wikipedia

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for academic writing or research. Wikipedia is increasingly being used by people in the academic community, from first-year students to distinguished professors, as an easily accessible tertiary source for information on anything and everything and a quick “ready-to-go” reference tool to get a feel for a concept or idea to get .

However, citing Wikipedia in research papers can be considered unacceptable as Wikipedia is not a reliable source.[1][2][3]

Many[4] colleges and universities, and public and private high schools, have policies that prohibit students from using Wikipedia as a source for research, essays, or similar assignments. That’s because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. If an error is detected, it is usually fixed. However, since Wikipedia cannot monitor thousands of changes made every day, some of those changes could contain vandalism or simply be wrong and go unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years.[5]

It may be noted that Wikipedia’s good articles and recommended articles are to some extent more advanced, professional and generally more credible than an article that is not marked as good or recommended. Because these articles are thoroughly reviewed and edited many, many times, and pass various “tests” before being confirmed as good or recommended, they can be used for more in-depth research than usual. Unlike normal or even good articles, Wikipedia’s Featured Articles are extra trustworthy as they have to pass even more rigorous “tests” to be highlighted as they aim to be “the best of Wikipedia”, “a role model for other articles”. ” and thus a more reliable source than average articles. But even with highlighted articles, an uninformed editor can insert incorrect information.

Follow two simple rules:

Research properly and wisely. Remember that each encyclopedia is a starting point for research, not an end point.

An encyclopedia, whether paper-based like Britannica or an online encyclopedia, is a great way to get a general understanding of a topic before delving into it. But then you need to dive into your topic and use books and articles and other higher quality sources to do better research. Research from these sources is more detailed, precise, carefully reasoned, and more comprehensively reviewed than the summary you’ll find in an encyclopedia. These are the sources you cite in your work. Wikipedia does not have to be cited in this case.

You need to delve into your topic and use books and articles and other higher quality sources to do better research. Research from these sources is more detailed, precise, carefully reasoned, and more comprehensively reviewed than the summary you’ll find in an encyclopedia. These are the sources you cite in your work. Wikipedia does not have to be cited in this case. An encyclopedia is great for checking general knowledge you’ve forgotten, like the start date of World War I, the boiling point of mercury, or the capital of Canada. A citation is not required to check general knowledge.

Some details, such as Canada’s population, can be found on Wikipedia, but it is best to check the information against an authoritative source such as the CIA World Factbook.

. A very obscure detail, like the names of the founders of the Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party, could be very difficult to find without the help of an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Wikipedia is ideal in these situations as it allows you to find the information as well as sources you can research to confirm that information. In any case, you should not cite Wikipedia itself, but the given source; You should definitely look up the source yourself before citing it. If no source is given, consider another method of obtaining this information.

All encyclopedias, whether traditional paper or online encyclopedias, have errors. When you have that many articles, typos and other errors creep in.

Use your judgement. Remember that all sources must be used. Use your judgement. Remember that all sources must be evaluated

Wikipedia is not a substitute for a reading assignment from your professor. Yes, Wikipedia can have a summary of an article or book on your reading list. However, the editors who prepared this summary may have made mistakes or mischaracterized the content. Or an editor biased against or for the work may add a personal opinion without a source. It is even possible for a person to introduce completely fabricated, false information as a hoax.

If there is a book in your university library, a renowned university publisher has published it, or an article is in a standard scientific journal, this means that several professors have at some point dealt with the information and found it worthy of publication.

Sourcing through a website is a gamble. Unless you know that the site is run by a reputable institution (a university or government science department), or you’ve checked the information from other (reliable) sources, it’s probably not a good idea to cite it. Even a university or government website could contain information that is not reliable if there are no gatekeepers to check the information before it is posted online.

When reading Wikipedia articles, remember to check the information carefully. Never cover what is on Wikipedia without checking it elsewhere.

Wikipedia’s goal is to become a research resource that all students can trust. If during your research you find that there is misinformation on Wikipedia, review Wikipedia’s basic guidelines and specifically what the community believes to be a reliable source, and please consider editing the article (and even a to create an account) with what you have learned to do. This is part of how Wikipedia wants to achieve its goals.

Reservation editor

Initiated as a restatement of the WP:PSTS section of Wikipedia:No original research, this essay may well serve as a separate policy (showing the connections between various core content policies, WP:GNG, etc.).

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such Wikipedia is a tertiary source.

primary source See also primary source

Primary sources are very close to the origin of a specific topic, problem, or situation being written about. Examples of primary sources are archaeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, videos or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings or trials; tabular results of polls or questionnaires; written or recorded records of laboratory and field research, experiments or observations, published experimental results of the person(s) actually involved in the research; original philosophical works, religious writings, administrative documents, and works of art and fiction.[1][2]

Each source can only be a primary source for a Wikipedia article that has that source as its main topic.[3]

Secondary source See also secondary source

A secondary source is at least one step removed from the topic being discussed. Secondary sources are reports that rely on research and other references to make interpretive, analytical, or synthesized claims.[4][5][6]

Depending on the subject, secondary sources may include textbooks, review articles, and peer-reviewed articles that publish original research.

Secondary sources are best used to present important viewpoints.[7]

Tertiary source See also tertiary source

Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendiums that combine many secondary[7] and primary sources. Many introductory textbooks can also be considered tertiary in that they summarize commonly accepted results from large sets of primary and secondary sources.

The main namespace of Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and thus a tertiary source.