Talk:List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series

Doors content / Time to fuzt with columns

They've announced the first RB3 DLC as doors, including pro g/b support for some songs. I will add them in a bit, but I need to noodle on columns now to diff between RB1/2/LRB and RB3 compat and Pro support. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here's my suggested plan of attack.

• The current "Lego RB" column will be converted into on that describes backwards compatibility, with three possible values: No (for all post-RB3 dls), "1/2/Lego" for compat family friendly songs, and "1/2" for compat but not-family friendly songs.
• We will need to add a new column, "Rock Band 3 Support", which will have three values, "No" (for presently all old DLC), "Yes with Pro Guitar/Bass" for DLC that gets the Pro G/B support, and "Yes" for RB3-compat but otherwise lacking pro G/B (since this sounds like the default). This not only tracks future DLC but the upgraded DLC from the past. Mind you, I could see possible breakdowns of this further for harmonies or keyboards, (eg a song with keyboards not being tracked to include them, specifically), but from a standpoint of an encyclopedia, that's a bit too much. We know the Guitar/Bass is something special due to potentially added cost, but the regular features otherwsie don't seem to be anything much.

We don't have a rush at the moment with only the Doors and the 3 pre-order DLC to worry about but we probably need to solidify this soon. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Bumping in case anyone hasn't seen this yet. I'd like to figure this out soon, and the only trick may be if we want include what has keys and harmonies or not. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

As someone added columns without consideration of how best to do this, we need to come to some means. I stress a point that HMX has stated that any DLC for RB3 will have keys/pro keys/vocal harmonies for songs where it makes sense; I read that to mean that there may be exceptions, but it should be considered like that every songs has lead, bass, drums, and vocals, with some exceptions. In other words, we don't need to highlight the presence of specifically keys or vocals, only that it works in RB3. ( case in point: several Pearl Jam and Green Day songs have vocal harmonies "out of the box" in RB3 ). The only "interesting" omission is Pro Guitar and Bass, since that's going to be a lot more picky by HMX and will cost extra. That is the only feature that should be tracked uniquely for RB3-based songs. --MASEM (t) 12:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

So thinking about it more, I think it makes sense to add three columns to show support for: Harmonies, Keyboards (which assumes pro keys too), and Pro Guitar/Bass. The latter is the no-brainer because we know these are separate download pieces. Given that numerous GD and PJ songs have harmonies as delivered in their RB1/2 format, when HMX starts updating the older tracks, this makes sense to consider both harmonies and keys separately. I don't think there's a need to track guitar/bass/drums/vocals outside of footnotes since the far majority of songs do not lack any of these. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Instead of new column(s), might it be easier to just add some kind of symbol after the song title if it includes pro mode? LeftHandedGuitarist (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I would think that people would want to sort on those features, so it couldn't be done easily in this manner. --MASEM (t) 17:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

With the announcement of the Queen enhanced packs (specifically that enhanced songs do not replace existing songs), I know what we need to do for columns. We only need to add one more to include "RB3 Features". We can use the {{no}} template for all preRB3 songs (with footnotes for the Pearl Jam/Green Day songs that have harmonies in RB3), use {{partial}} for RB3 DLC that does not have pro guitar support, and {{yes}} for songs with pro guitar support. Sorting this will keep all pre-RB1/RB2 songs together, and all RB3 songs together. Now the only thing I'm not sure of yet is what to alternatively title the "partial" and "yes" tags. I could make Partial read "Yes" to RB3 features, and "Yes" to "Yes with Pro Guitar/Bass". --MASEM (t) 15:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• What about "None", "Harmonies Only" for PJ/GD, "Standard" for normal RB3 and "Pro" if it includes Pro-Guitar/Bass? I guess I'm wondering, what is the proliferation of keys/harmony for future RB3 releases? Is having keys/harmony the default on 95%+ of the releases? In that case, using the footnote to denote 'missing tracks' the same way we do for instrumentals and no-bass/no-drums in the pre-RB3 content is sufficient. But if harmonies and/or keys are only on, say, 75% of the releases, it might be useful to track these independently. If possible. I'm not sure how you'd know if it had harmonies/keys without specifically looking it up in the music store, which is a lot of work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterrisser (talk • contribs) 13:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A couple of things:

• Aren't there also Pro Drums? I haven't seen these mentioned anywhere on this page or in these discussions.
• Will there ever be songs that have Pro Guitar, but not Pro Bass, or vice versa?
• I'd love to see a column that indicates Live, Re-recording, RB Remix or 'as made popular by' Covers. For example, all the Jimmy Buffett stuff is newly recorded and I'm not exactly sure about the Styx/REO Speedwagon stuff.
• I like the idea of creating a single 'compatibility' column for RB1/RB2/Lego/RB3. Because there are a couple of songs that are available on RB1 but not 2 or 3, and now some that work on RB1/2 but not 3. Peterrisser (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• • All songs implicitly have pro drums (its generated by drummer animations), so there's no need to track that. If it will have pro guitar, it will have pro bass. Sorting on the nature of Live or Re-Recording isn't really helpful given how few there are outside of standard masters. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• • • Thanks for the clarification on pro drums & pro bass. I'm not sure that sorting is the only reason to have a column though. 'Rerecording' is a pretty crucial piece of information and I would have liked to have had it before actually previewing (or in one case, buying) the songs. The footnotes are kind of okay, but there are a dozen of them and they are cluttery. Would it be wrong to append it to the song name, like we do with some of the (Live) or (Original Version) stuff (see Iron Maiden, for example)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterrisser (talk • contribs) 13:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

As long as we're futzing with columns (which I'm all for, by the way), I'd like to address some of the other footnotes:

• Can we remove the "was/will be released later" footnotes, once that time is over? Does anyone care that two years ago one song was released a week later? Or that it was (is?) available through a special promotion (is that still true?) Or that the Doors songs used to be available as a free download a couple of months ago? Or that the song was once available for free with a pre-order? If so, maybe we can detail it in a different section.
• I think noting that a few songs are different prices is a good use of footnotes, as is whether a song doesn't include some instruments or vocals. Would it be useful to call out instrumentals and 'doesn't include one or more instruments' as two different footnotes? Technically, the vocal track is an 'instrument', but I think people think of an instrumental differently than a song that has no bass or drum part.
• A handful of songs at the beginning were not original masters. Ever since then, releases generally have been, yet, it seems like we're highlighting the original masters as the exception when they are clearly now the rule. Can we flip that around, so that the 'as made famous by' non-masters are called out as the exception? I would prefer to see either a footnote or an addendum to the song title (similar to 'Live'/'Original Version'), rather than a typographic discrepancy. That would be more consistent, I think.
• If we don't specify exactly which songs are valid with which versions of RB, we should at least mark the ones that weren't forwards compatible (AC/DC's Let There Be Rock or Iron Maiden's Run to the Hills, for example) with footnotes. Peterrisser (talk) 13:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, after fixing the noincludes so the 2011 stuff shows up on the main menu, I had to copy ALL of the footnotes over to 2011, even though some make no sense, specifically referencing 2010. We can't add a footnote every time there's a release schedule discrepency, and I'm not sure why we want to keep that information historically, especially as it seems to be more commonplace. I am going to remove those footnotes, but am wonder if anyone cares about the information. If so, I'll create a 'release notes' section or something. Maybe I'll just do that anyway... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterrisser (talk • contribs) 03:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and added the RB3 support column. As with the explanatory text, this assumes all songs are Pro Drums in RB3 and that the column shows what additional songs are there. Taking that, that leaves five possible types:
  1. The song is pre-RB3, and nothing else happens in RB3. I've labeled these as {{no}}.
  2. The song is pre-RB3 but retrofitted with RB3 features (ala the Pearl Jam/Green Day harmonies) Those are {{partial}}
  3. The song is pre-RB3, but a newer RB3 Edition has been released with Pro Guitar support. As a player can buy the Pro Guitar charts but not buy the RB3 version, playing the Pro Guitar chart over the RB2 version in RB3, this is similar to the retrofit, and is {{partial}}
  4. The song is post-RB3, no Pro Guitar & Bass. This is {{yes}}, implying keys, pro keys, and backing vocals are present when it makes sense.
  5. The song is post-RB3, with Pro Guitar & Bass. This is {{yes}}.
• I may add a sort means to these , but this generally gets the effect I wanted, that you can sort on Pro parts or Pro-Guitar/Bass specifically. --MASEM (t) 21:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bhchurchil, 13 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Sorting needs to be fixed for bands beginning with "The". Some of them show up in "T" section alphabetically.

Bhchurchil (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Moved from talk:2009 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series. Celestra (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

New page

just like guitar hero, rock band 3 dlc needs its own page as the DLC is no longer compatible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.155.21.167 (talk) 08:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

We'll have some way of marking when DLC isn't backwards compat, but splitting these lists is not practical. --MASEM (t) 08:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing after the release of Rock Band 3 is playable in Lego Rock Band, so that column is going to have a seemingly endless stream of red "No"s after a few months if the lists aren't split. 184.76.48.100 (talk) 07:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that will how it will be, unfortunately. --MASEM (t) 12:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Masem's approach and it would be a more practical and useful resource if we keep RB1/2 and RB3's list as one rather than separate.

bon jovi

None of those Bon Jovi songs are available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.157.219 (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

In The End

so I'm guessing there's gonna be a new article for exclusive Rock Band 3 DLC

It would be helpful to add a column to the song list to denote what old downloadable songs have an upgraded RB3 version that can be purchased, whether that is a Keyboard+Vocal harmony upgrade and/or a Pro Guitar+Pro Bass upgrade. That's some handy data and I can't find in a nice format so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.22.157 (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I want to wait to see how they will release/handle upgrade DLC (Bon Jovi doesn't count) after which I will add the columns. --MASEM (t) 22:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Adding Price

Would it be possible to add the MSP or other respective prices of the songs? I think this would help when determining which songs rock band is giving away for free download. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.113.246 (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Prices aren't added to articles since the cost is different in every country. To list the cost would mean to list what it costs for every country, on every platform. --Teancum (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

And give that it is highly exceptional where there is no-cost/low-cost DLC, the use of footnotes is the best way to indicate that, with the summary of the MSP cost in the header above the table. --MASEM (t) 17:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. It is nearly useless for me to have the free and half-price items listed via footnotes, in that it's very difficult to determine which songs they are. I can't just click the footnote, as that only brings me to the first instance. For example, please try and find a list of all the half-priced items from 2009, without looking at EVERY SINGLE item? You mention that the use of footnotes is the 'best' way to represent the info, and I would be open to understanding why this is the case, but I don't see it. In fact, if you are heartily against a column, I would suggest creating another section that lists the free and half-price songs individually, so that information is captured in a quickly accessible format.

Also, if prices aren't supposed to be added to articles, then we should remove both the footnotes AND the section marked 'pricing', as both of those very specifically list the prices of tracks and packs in US$, whereas the column specifically avoided exact pricing by using Full, Half and Free, which don't vary per country.

Please let me know what you think. Peterrisser (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)