# Talk:The Best of George Harrison

The article states that Harrison "completed his quota of Apple studio albums in the autumn of 1975, with the 'contractual obligation' Extra Texture." The Beatles' revised recording contract of September 1, 1969 apparently required two albums per year, collectively or individually. It would seem that that quota would have already been met and it's unclear why only Harrison would be required to produce a "contractual obligation" album. Can anyone verify the precise wording in the sources cited for this information? Piriczki (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"contractual obligation" is the term Leng uses for Extra Texture, as does John Harris in a 2011 article in Mojo: "His final solo album for EMI, and long understood as a classic case of contractual obligation." As far as the actual wording goes, it does need revisiting, I admit – for precision. But still, various sources I have all support the idea that Harrison had to fill a quota of some sort, or at leased owed the company/s one more album:
Leng says on page 178 of his book: "George wanted to cut a new album as soon as possible, to extricate himself from the Capitol/EMI contract so that he could move on to Dark Horse."
Robert Rodriguez, p. 247: "George owed one more release to EMI before he could commence recording for his own label."
Alan Clayson, p. 348: "[With Extra Texture], George had fulfilled his last commitment to EMI/Capitol, as well as the final [studio] album release for Apple as Wonderwall had been the first." Clayson adds, with reference to the apparent obligation Harrison faced beforehand: "Like a tenant paying overdue rent with bad grace, he turned out 'a grubby album …'"
Madinger & Easter, p. 451: [Extra Texture] left the impression of a hastily assembled 'product' to get the whole EMI contract over and done."
So, as I say, I'm happy to revisit the text to ensure the sources adequately support the point, but it does seem as if the contractual-obligation nature of the album is valid. These authors and others all write of the expedient nature of the album (the fact it was recorded at A&M in LA, rather than at the superior FPSHOT; the rush to make it, unlike with every other one of his albums) – as if Harrison owed it and simply wanted to get the thing out the way.
I'm interested, though, that you're asking about "the precise wording in the sources cited for this information". You're quite right to, make no mistake. But where were your sources for the changes regarding an April 1976 contraction expiration and relevant details? As you'll see, I've reworded there, because you effectively credited the likes of Schaffner and Rodriguez for those points you want to see included, but those authors don't support them. (Peter Doggett and others all give that late-January '76 date also, by the way.) Perhaps they're all wrong, I don't know – and I admire anyone for wanting to get something right rather than blindly follow what might be a poorly researched claim. But as with a similar edit you made at Apple Records, where are your sources? JG66 (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, music writers often casually refer to any artist's last album for a particular label as a "contractual obligation" album without considering the actual terms of the contract. The Beatles' nine-year recording contract of January 26, 1967 only required a quota of 70 songs over a five year period. After that they were not obligated to provide any more recordings but were still under contract until January 25, 1976. The revised September 1, 1969 contract with Capitol changed the requirement to two albums per year, collectively or individually. Since the Beatles collectively and individually had released 19 new albums from 1969 to 1975, it would seem the quota would have easily been met already. Also, it is unclear why it would be Harrison's obligation alone to fulfill the Beatles' contract. A Rolling Stone article from October 23, 1975 about Extra Texture says:George Harrison gazed at the track listing on his new album. "This is probably the last Apple record of all time," he half smiled, shaking his head in disbelief. "Now Paul's done a deal for his future; he'll be on Capitol. John and Ringo don't seem to have started a new album, and our agreement with EMI runs out at the end of the year."It doesn't appear he was under any particular obligation other than if he did make a new album, it would be for EMI as he was under contract until January 25, 1976.
The September 1, 1969 contract also gave Apple the exclusive right to manufacture and distribute Beatle records in North America, including their back catalog, provided Apple contract with Capitol Records to actually handle manufacturing and distribution. It is the expiration of this agreement, which expired April 30, 1976, that returned control of the Beatles catalog to Capitol and led to the repackaging of previously released material in the form of Rock 'n' Roll Music and The Best of George Harrison. Piriczki (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Although the source I was going by says the Capitol contract expired April 30, 1969, looking through the contract I don't see that date, only that the agreement covers September 1, 1969 to January 25, 1976. It is specific about the number of albums required, two new albums per year (September 1 – August 31) and one new album in the final year (September 1, 1975 – January 25, 1976) with multi-record sets counting as one album. So Apple was required to provide one Beatle album after September 1, 1975 per the terms of the contract but I still don't see how it was necessarily Harrison's obligation. Either way, along with Lennon and Starr, he was still under contract until January 25, 1976 regardless. Piriczki (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

12.172.228.128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is continually introducing content citing Facebook as a source, which is not considered reliable in general by Wikipedia.

Some people have pointed out the resemblence of the line drawing around the photo of Harrison to a middle finger, although whether or not this was intentional or a coincidence remains to be seen. 

I have tried discussing with them at their talk page but they seem hell-bent on adding this content with an unreliable citation.  I would like input from other editors on this situation as right now I seem to be the only one watching this article.  --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

That source, an FAQ Facebook group, is certainly not reliable. If they had provided a source for the claim that would at least be something but they provided nothing which makes its credibility even less (even though it already had none). – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Just read through the edits and the IP's claims. If it's from Rodriguez's book that's more credible, but it would be better if they didn't edit war and explained the situation in the first place. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
This dubious claim should be removed. Even if it is from a reliable book (where is the page number?) it's just trivia and adds nothing of value to the article. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)