Talk:List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Please put the upcoming songs back into the main article. For those of us that use the page regularly, what's the point in having to go to different pages for that information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

i agree with the above. can we please have the upcoming songs back in here? (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see the Upcoming List in this article instead of having to watch the 2009 list. UltimateSin01 (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is too long to include anything else but all of the songs to make it usable for all readers, per the recent decision to split the pages. If you were watching "this" page, just bookmark the other page to keep track. --MASEM (t) 13:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This is meant to be the "complete" list. If songs are confirmed, they'll show up here eventually anyway. You're not saving anyone anything, especially not time, as those who do not want this long-ass list would've went to one of the other split up ones, not this. (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The upcoming list barely adds any to this list, and most of the upcoming list will eventually merge with the main list anyway. If people's computers can't handle this page they can go to the other page. (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

How does the upcoming list not add anything to the FULL list of songs for Rock Band? It's rediculous to split it up. If the song is confirmed to be implemented it should be in here. (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Song totals being tracked manually?

I've noticed since the split that each of the pages now has a box in the lead containing a breakdown of total number of songs, albums, and packs. Now, from the looks of things...this is a manual thing. Which means that inevitably we're going to run into a situation where these are going to get forgotten by an editor, leading to problems tracking them accurately. Is it at all possible to set up these tables so that they can be programmatically generated by an edit to only one place...? -- TRTX T / C 06:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that as of viewing the numbers now, 11:03 PM PST the total number of songs is incorrectly at 663, it should be 653. (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ready to remove Wii Availability column?

I suspect every song will be available for the Wii in the next few weeks. I say we remove this column entirely. If there are a couple songs that take much longer to show up on the Wii, we should just add a letter note (a, b, c, d, etc., like we've been doing) for the few songs that don't have it and at the bottom at a note that says "Not available for the Wii". We could probably do that now. There used to be so many songs not available for the Wii that the column was very useful. Now that 99% of them are available the column just doesn't make sense anymore. Wildonrio (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The column isn't needed anymore. A letter note will be good enough from now on. (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

We'll have the best indicator on Friday when next week's Wii backlog tracks are announced. If they don't include the tracks released this week, then based on how they've been doing, they should officially complete all missing Wii tracks up to this week's releases (Petty, etc.). Thus, they will be fully on parity with 360/PS3 the following week (with 9/1 DLC). If that is the case, then after we've gotten then on Friday, we can remove the Wii column. This scenario makes sense as it gets them to DLC parity just before TB:RB comes out- and even though that is not compat DLC, it's a worthwhile and notable goal to be at. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
So if and hwne the Wii Availability Column is taken is out, that leaves room for the Upcoming List, or you could just put it in now... UltimateSin01 (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
that doesn't change the size issues that the list was split for. We'd still keep that at a separate page. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The Upcoming List should be put into this article but it should only include the songs that will be avaiable for the following week. It won't include the songs chosen from RB Unplugged or andything like that, only the upcoming week's songs. UltimateSin01 (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Offtopic. Start a new section to argue about this. On the topic of the Wii column, I say this Friday when the backlog is announced we go ahead and remove the column and add the letter notes for the few remaining non-wii tracks. It looks like they are going to be releasing in this order from now on: X360, PS3, Wii, with X360 being on Tuesdays, PS3 on Thursdays, and Wii being the following Tuesday. If this is the case, then the Wii will always be a few tracks behind the other two systems. Instead of waiting for synchronicity, let's just get this done on Friday. Wildonrio (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Could we possibly change that last column to just be the letter notes to be able to choose to organize by song price (free, $1, or standard pricing) or something similar to that fashion? We have the space available, and could then remove the letter annotations near the song (sans the promotion note), or would this just cause more trouble (due to packs and whatnot)? Foximus (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Could be a good idea, it's just that those prices are not set in stone. Someone would have to constantly keep tabs on them. Plus I tried to pitch this idea a few months ago and they told me that wikipedia is not a sales site to advertise prices like that. Wildonrio (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Third Eye Blind

Heads up that Third Eye Blind has reported via their Twitter that they've rerecorded six songs for RB. [1] --MASEM (t) 19:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


I think this article is growing more and more unwieldly every week. I suggest it be split somehow, perhaps by release date. I know that this can make sorting it by artist and what not annoying, but this beast is over 100K and growing all the time. Aar☢n BruceTalk/Contribs 05:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we can make the current list an article by itself with NO other content for starters. Aar☢n BruceTalk/Contribs 05:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Splitting via date seems like the only logical approach given how this list grows.'s master table does include sorting by other means as well, so the loss of sorting by artist/etc.
If we do split, the articles should share the same lead up to table save for identification of the period (and possibly with a infobox-like navbox to move between them), but only the last, most recent list should have the upcoming songs listed; the other tables should use "seealso" to direct the reader there. --MASEM (t) 06:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
If we split, my concern is that the sortability becomes less you lose the ability to find songs from similar artists/genres. I'm especially concerned with losing the ability to group songs by the bands like Grateful Dead and Weezer would be spread across multiple pages (leaving readers unable to accurately assess the table). But then of course the issue becomes how do we record the upcoming content? I guess the two options I see are either split on band/artist name or year released for the game. -- TRTX T / C 13:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
That's my initial concern, but then we have to remember why this list is here: it is to document which songs have been added as DLC for the highly popular game Rock Band and, due to the cultural awareness of the game, may often see some correlation with improved sales for that song or group or album. Providing a single sortable list to see all the songs that an artist has provided is great and all, but that is strictly a utility use and not geared towards encyclopedia information. And as (and likely other sources) mimic this function, it's not strictly on us to keep it. Thus, splitting the table does have merits.
Now, I do wonder if there's an option here for keeping one long master table and then split tables, funneling uses to use the split smaller tables but making them aware of the large table (which may take a while to load). Yes, that duplicates information but it also helps the reason to split and retains the large sortable table. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Erm, I dunno if this will be a good suggestion, but what if you split the page by Year? Example
  • List of Rock Band Songs 2007-08
  • List of Rock Band Songs 2009+

Please don't yell at me, as this was the first suggestion that came to mind. (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It actually is a nice idea. It would definitely make it easier to locate certain songs. --Nascarfan1964 (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
That range of dates would seem fine. Based on HMX's production, we're about 10 songs a week (now) so each year would be 500 songs, which, judging on the current size, would put each list at about 80k of text - large, but not terribly. I'm still trying to see if it's reasonable to have a single master list for those that want it. --MASEM (t) 19:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
What if we were to keep this article as a "master list" of sorts, with all info as is. From there, we'd have the 07-08 article with just songs/artists/release date. Then we'd have 2009 with the songs/artists/release date and upcoming content. Promotional information would be kept in the master article with a link to it from the other pages where needed. -- TRTX T / C 03:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that splitting the list, and thus losing the sorting functionality would be a shame, but can understand that it could soon get very long. However, the list isn't as long as, say the List_of_animated_feature_films. Robsinden (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Scenario: I just bought Rock Band 2. I want to know what songs are available. I wouldn't really care when the songs were released, I just want to sort the table and look for bands that I like. If the page is split, this will be confusing to do since the information won't all be together. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it should be split up by when the song was released on the RB Music Store, it should be displayed by band. Keep the current format but now every band would have a drop down list. You click on the band's name, drop down list of songs/genre etc (all the categories that are on the list headings now would be there). UltimateSin01 (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I strongly oppose splitting the article up. It would greatly hamper its readability and usefulness. Also note that the list is actually only around 77kB in readable prose.--Remurmur (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. This fits more into Wikipedia's readable prose, but will indefinitely be of more use to the reader to have things together in one place. Lots of lists are >150kb and higher when it is necessary, and it seems wisest here. --Teancum (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: split the table into separate, transcluded tables; split the 07, 08, and 09 content into separate tables, and then on the 07, 08, and 09 articles (or however you want to include them) you just include the template. You could then have a master page that includes all of the separate tables into one; this way, we could still have the sortable content in one place for those that want it, but we could have more manageable tables for editing and reading, and we wouldn't have to duplicate our content everywhere to accomplish both feats. The individual table pages (different from the articles) would just have noinclude tags wrapping the table heads.
    If this is confusing, look at User:Majorly/RfA/Stats for an example; 2004 thru 2009 are all separate pages, but they are transcluded (sans table heads) onto User:Majorly/RfA/Stats/all (warning: crazy-large page). EVula // talk // // 00:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

A split (of some sort) would be incredibly beneficial to those of us that check this page via smartphones (like when new songs are announced or while at a record store trying to purchase more music by the artists). It has, on more than one occasion, killed my phone forcing a hard reboot. It's the "single large table" that causes rendering problems (which doesn't end up rendering as a table in the end), not strictly the amount of data. (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

While that's probably true, you would still be looking at 100+ entries per year by splitting it, which can still bog a smart phone down. --Teancum (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Just as a reminder: as this list keeps growing, the concept that "song that have been included in RB have seen increased interest" becomes more and more diluted, and at some point (discluding the RBN part) this crosses the line as being as directory as opposed to something of encyclopedic nature. The purpose of this table is not to be useful for you, the RB player, to find what songs you don't have yet by sorting by artist or genre, but instead to identity included songs so that those researching the songs can tie their RB appearance to a boosting of sales or other meta-information. Yes, we can try to keep it useful to the RB player, but that's the secondary goal. Thus, I think considering a split is fine, and the fact we can make the split but still manage to keep a master list will do little harm to that secondary goal while making the first goal (supporting research) easier on the end user. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, based on EVula's suggestion above, I've made test pages:

The upcoming songs could be their own list too. Noincludes are used to provide useful headers and footers on the shorter lists, and I would also include navigation aids above and below the table to get to the master or by-year list (and future releases if given). --MASEM (t) 20:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to split everything, we need to be consistent; specifically, we need to break it down by year, regardless of the fact that 07 didn't have nearly as much. Other than that, though, that's pretty much what I had in mind. :) EVula // talk // // 16:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
If we're going to split, I agree that it should be year by year, which would provide the most logical progression as we have to add more and more pages. With the RBN coming soon, I'm picturing two sets of DLC articles, one listing "official" releases (07, 08, 09, etc)...and another listing RBN releaes (09, etc). I'm not too fluent on "transclusion", but if that allows us to only have to update a song entry in one spot then I'm all for it! -- TRTX T / C 18:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking the RBN pages could have simpler names, but follow the same general naming scheme; specifically, I'm imagining List of Rock Band Network songs (2009), etc. (since all the songs thru the RBN are downloadable, versus the difference between shipped/downloaded songs in Rock Band, we don't need to specify that in the article name). I think this will allow us a greater degree of flexibility as we grow (though it'll be interesting to see just how big the RBN pages will get). EVula // talk // // 19:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem with the RBN is that right, only the 360 will see all songs; the PS3 and Wii currently will only see a selection of songs that HMX chooses to be on it. If we stick with "yes/no" columns as the present "Available for Wii" , we'd need two additional columns for all songs to indicate this (one to indicate an RBN track, and one to indicate it's PS3/Wii availability). Becasue the RBN is effectively a low-cost barrier user content, I'd rather keep it as a separate list , and keep the DLC lists here as what HMX has officially put out simply for easy of tracking - based on the amount of feedback that I've seen towards RBN that we're likely going to far exceed the rate of HMX official releases through it. That's not to say the same approach can't work there as well, with multiple and master lists and transclusion, just that official HMX releases should not be mixed with RBN releases.
Also, the only thing I'd change (besides a 2007 list) is to add in a header or something above the list to help people navigate between the years and the masters. (even though this nav will be available in the navbox at the bottom). --MASEM (t) 21:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I made myself clear: I think the Rock Band Network lists should be on a totally different series of pages. The only relationship with the regular "List of downloadable songs" pages is that they follow the same 2007, 2008, etc. naming scheme. I totally agree about the navigation between pages, though I'd expect that to be remedied by hatnotes and the navbox at the bottom. EVula // talk // // 21:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I have another scenario as to why we should not split the page (and this one is true for me): I use this page for research. I maintain a list of songs shared between Guitar Hero and Rock Band ( Whenever a Guitar Hero game (or DLC for one) is announced, I use Ctrl+F on this article to find if the songs are already in Rock Band. So this is an example of how splitting could hurt research. I strongly oppose the split. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read my suggestion; by splitting and transcluding, we could have a single "master page" that still had all of the items listed, which negates your concern by still meeting your needs. EVula // talk // // 16:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


So let me see if I can recap accurately:

This leaves a few questions (At least in my mind):

  • Where does the "Promotions" section go? Is it possible we can create it in one spot (say the master list) and have it carried over into the yearly articles by the same means we carry over the table contents into the master list?
  • What do we do with the "Exported setlists" section? Do we stop recording this in the DLC articles and simply include sections on it in the Track Pack and RB1 article?
  • What will redirect where? The most common "search" I use to get here is "RB DLC" or "Rock Band DLC". I propose that we set up a disambiguation page that asks people to select a specific year, the master list, as well as offer links to the Track Packs and Exportation.

I like the options we've discussed so far, just hoping to get a feel for where things are at. Since if we don't plan it out we could wind up with a LOT of confusing problems. -- TRTX T / C 18:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this page should be the catch-all for everything; the Upcoming songs (because we've verified that the songs are Upcoming, but not what year they're coming; for example, we shouldn't list Kryptonite on the 2009 page). This would include stuff that we do have verified release dates for; it's better to just have all the unreleased stuff on a single page (and in a single table) than to split it by "date known" and "date unknown."
Promotions and Exported setlists content would still be here, and the various redirects would still come here, but new shortcuts would be used for specific years (I use "rock band dlc" to get here on a regular basis, but I could just as easily use "rock band dlc 2009" to find the most recent releases).
As far as the naming scheme goes, I'd prefer to see List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series (2007) instead, but I don't have much of a preference. I also don't think we should have the complete (all years) list here; the whole point of splitting the article is to shrink this one. I'd rather see a List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series (complete list)-type article; a somewhat unique naming scheme, yes, but the most manageable way to preserve both the usability of the table and easier/faster loading of this page (which, if we use it the way I just outlined, would still be a viable and important page).
Just my two cents. EVula // talk // // 19:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
This page should then just be the most recent "year", then? That is, righ tnow, it would be the 2009 list, though live at the current title, and then when 2010 comes around, move around the extra sections to that? --MASEM (t) 21:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't thought about it, but that does make sense. EVula // talk // // 21:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Side effect is that it makes it the easier to maintain too. While the upcoming songs will be in an noinclude box, the table lines can easily be copied to the table that's outside that block, once those songs are released. --MASEM (t) 21:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think when the Rock Band Network comes out, that should get it's own page with it's DLC. It has the potential to explode in size, so maybe this page could be just for the official Harmonix releases, and then another page for the RBN songs.

I don't believe anyone is saying that Rock Band Network songs should be listed on this page, if for no other reason than that it is a much more specialized listing (RBN will only be available on the 360, whereas these songs are available on the PS3 and sometimes Wii as well as the 360). EVula // talk // // 19:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Split done

Given the last of any complaints that cannot be surmounted by appropriate transclusion, I've gone ahead and splitted this apart.

We know have:

I've basically copied the heading and footing text to each article, with the only addition of identifying, prior to the table, the number of years. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

My only beef with the way you did things is that I think that List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series should lead you to the complete list, while the songs released in 2009 should be in an article similar to 2007 and 2008. Doing things this way would be more technically accurate, I think, while providing the same functionality. Maybe others could chime in? - Runch (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
The whole point of the split is because the page was getting too long. This way we're giving the average reader the most recent listing, but not overwhelming them with lots of data unless they specifically want it. (the reason they're included on a single page at all was because people complained about not being able to search a complete table if it was split up) EVula // talk // // 16:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
That is a completely valid point, but I'm thinking about the balance of
  • What the user may expect to be on the page - a factor that those more interested in the game will expect
  • What the user may not expect the size of the page to be - a factor gears more towards the non-gamer
Given that we should try to aim to serve the more general audience - not those that come here each week for RB details, but those that may be doing research on a band or song to learn more about it - I think we should go with the second approach, thus having the "default" DLC page be just the latest year with clear (or at least, I hope it's completely clear) that there's other pages for other years - which of course helps to serve both groups equally. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Excellent job. :) I've gone ahead and created rock band dlc 2007, rock band dlc 2008, and rock band dlc 2009 shortcuts. EVula // talk // // 16:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


There are a few formatting issues with the split articles as they are now. Three points:
1. More conventional article titles
The more standardized titling scheme would be:

Per similar articles such as the general 2008 in music, 2008 in film, 2008 in literature, etc. to the more specific 2008 in Australian literature, 2008 in LGBT rights, 2008 in Estonian football, etc.

2. More direct title-to-content organization
I agree with the point above that, with the current split configuration, List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series should contain the complete list and a new page should be created specifically for 2009 on the basis that then the article titles would be accurately describing their contents. It's not called "List of recent and upcoming downloadable songs for the Rock Band series". The fact that it currently has the most general/all-encompassing title logically means it should contain the most general/all-encompassing content. Masem, you say that we should aim to serve a more general audience instead of the hardcore fans who may be checking the page to see what's new every week. But only including the most recent songs seems to be a move that only appeals to those latter fans who check for new songs, where "those that may be doing research on a band or song to learn more about it" are inconvenienced by being directed to a page with a general title but specific content, only to have to redirect themselves to a page with a more specific title that has more general content. It's simply poor organization.

3. Rewrite "year" articles with year-specific content
As they are now, the "year" lists are basically carbon copies of the original, with the same leads and sections, etc. This is understandable, as the move was very recent. But they should be re-written to contain information specific to what songs were released that year (how many songs were released, how many albums, what notable albums or artists appeared, notable artists that debuted in the series during that year, etc.). I think the "pricing" section should be eliminated from all but the general article, as the pricing is standard and doesn't change across years.

Mmmyep. T. H. McAllister (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and move List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series (2007) and List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series (2008) to 2007 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series and 2008 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series, respectively. I'll wait for discussion on point #2 before doing one for 2009. T. H. McAllister (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I've also taken the liberty of removing the navbox and including a less intrusive infobox ({{Infobox Rock Band DLC}}). T. H. McAllister (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The "default" article, the whole reasons for splitting, need to be short; we should not be surprising unsuspected readers with excessively long pages. Those that are going to use the master list will know that it's a large list and can expect it. The infobox and other text clues will make it obvious that a full list exists if that's needed. --MASEM (t) 02:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, then how about we split this article into two: 2009 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series and Downloadable songs for the Rock Band series. The latter would be a general article covering DLC pricing and availability without any lists, and that would be where most people are directed to learn about Rock Band DLC. Then the year articles still exist, including one for 2009 that is updated with new songs and one that includes the complete list. That way, nobody heading to the general DLC article will expect a huge list of any kind, there's still an avenue for Rock Band fans to be aware of new releases, and the full list is still up for reference purposes. T. H. McAllister (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
It could be possible to take all the "extra" stuff and move it to the current Rock Band article, expanding a section on downloadable content there, including possibly the navigation box to all the years. Save for those that know how to get to this page readily, most will likely discover it through the Rock Band article, so there's no problem with moving the non-list stuff there and then present them with the links that give the expectation of lists (and clearly, because there's ~700 songs of DLC out there, it would be fairly obvious the master list is still a problem).
So the 2009 list would have 2009 songs and future songs (as they could be 2009 or beyond), but little else beyond what's needed to lead off the article. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
That's the impression I'm getting. Regardless, once this is may be beneficial to have some kind of RB DLC article map included in each talk page so that new editors don't get confused trying to figure out where their edits should go. -- TRTX T / C 15:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Q: Where do which articles do we update as new songs come out?

With DLC Tuesday coming up, I have some questions that I felt would be good to have archived:

  • Which article needs to be updated as new songs come out each week for 360/PS3?
  • Which articles should be updated as older songs (2007/2008) are added to the Wii back catalog?

Hopefully answering these will avoid having situations where two editors make the same changes in seperate articles. -- TRTX T / C 15:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

  • The upcoming songs should always be on the most recent year page, simply to make it easy to cut and paste when they are live.
  • We're about.. a month? or so from HMX completing all existing tracks on the wii, most being some 2008 albums. When that is done, the Wii column goes away with the presumption that new DLC for 360 and PS3 are also Wii'd that week. To note, all 2007 songs have been Wii'd. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
    • As Masem said, as stuff is released, this page gets updated (as it contains the current year's songs). As for the Wii songs being added, the appropriate year subpage gets updated. EVula // talk // // 16:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clarification. I am not too familiar with the use of transclusion. So my confusion was in regards to ensuring that updates made to tables are reflected in other spots where they are referenced. Of course, should I screw up at some point feel free to rap me on the hand with the ruler before pointing me to the proper location. ;) -- TRTX T / C 18:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
For you as one of the major contributors to the table when new songs are announced or added, the only change is that you need to make sure that the "noinclude" tag that is just before the table closing markup stays right where it is and to add stuff before that tag. (Stuff inside "noinclude" is, well, obviously, not included when transcluded into a different location :) ). The transclusion only really happens on the master table, and that's only going to be done effectively once a year. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wii Availability

The July 28, 2009 song list is not available for the Wii. There was no release of songs on this date for the Wii. Whether or not this will be fixed with the next upgrade I'm not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do people keep checking wii songs as available when they are not? Gorilla Z is not available on wii yet. Not the first time it happened. (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

They are listed as available when they are announced for Wii, which is usually on a Friday. They become available on Tuesday. So the Gorillaz songs will come out tomorrow for Wii. - Runch (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we can remove this now, since all the songs except for 3 have been included. We can just add a note to it's release date it's not available for the Wii (yet). -- ROMaster2 (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Do not split this article

Seriously, it's fine the way it is. Don't split it by upcoming songs (an article for that would periodically useless if there are no new songs announced), and don't split it by 2007-2008, etc (that's just stupid and means more clicking to get where you want to go)

The one thing I DO recommend is making an article for Track Packs.Doshindude (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There is one , List of Rock Band track packs. --MASEM (t) 23:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with keeping the article the way it is. Even for those on dial up, it may take longer to load for those guys. But, it will still save time because they are not clicking to find the related articles that this has already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Its fine the way it is...for now. In six months to a year from now though, the list is going to be a lot bigger than the long list it is already. MiTfan3 (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

LEave it alone. There is no reason to split this up other than it is a long page. If you are looking for a certain song search for it in the text of the article. If you want to see if a song is available for download, odoes't it make more sense to look on one page as opposed to looking on multiple pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The splitting of the article has already been discussed. Please read that section. It's clear from some of your reactions that you don't even realize how it will be split. DJKingpin (talk) 03:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's fine this way. The only thing I would think to add is a link to just the upcoming songs that include the newest releases from only that previous Tuesday so people on their smart phones can use it. Otherwise, leave it as it is. I think it's better that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerch4k (talkcontribs) 15:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be kept as is as it is much easier to navigate in its entirety. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I Agree, leave it the way it is. but i would suggest that the default order be reversed. the most recent to the earliest. the page is small (75-100kb ??) and anyone who is on dial-up isn't going to be looking at this page... because if you are reading this the you are probably on XBL or PSN and those require broadband access. -- Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

YES split the article

Really, the only reason myself and I'm sure many other people come to this page is to see the upcoming songs on Friday. It's really becoming annoying having to wait for the page to load on my slow connection just to see one thing. One may say that "What if there are no new songs announced", however, there have been new tracks announced every Friday for years! It would be much more efficient to have two separate pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'm ok with creating subarticles by year and having a master list that is produced automatically through transclusion of the sublists. My main concern with any split proposal is that the ability to search the master list by artist and song name be preserved. Having to visit multiple subarticles divided by year in order to search for all songs by a paritcular artist or to search for a particular song would defeat a major purpose of the list in the first place. (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The method for splitting up the table by year would allow us to still have an entire list on a separate page for those that want to access the entire list. Don't worry. :) EVula // talk // // 15:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You are better off going straight to the Rock Band website to find out what songs are coming. They announce it every Friday around 9 AM EST on their official forums. The only advantage this site has is that it will list songs revealed through other sources, but those only happen once every several weeks. I really don't see how splitting the article improves it other than "making it smaller" Rowdyoctopus (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it neccesary to have a new thread of discussion for this? It makes it diffcult to track the conversation and form a consensus when there's 3 different threads going regarding the split. -- TRTX T / C 02:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


Since I'm not allowed to make updates to this page, I'd like to point out a couple updates that need be made.

1. Three Beatles albums can be added to the full album section.

   a.  Abbey Road - October 20, 2009
   b.  Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band - November 2009
   c.  Rubber Soul - December 2009
 -Baptiste, Sean (2009-08-19). "Harmonix and MTV Games Make Major Music Announcements at Gamescom 2009". Harmonix Music Systems

2. The Rock Band Country Track Pack has been released already.

 -"Rock Band Country Track Pack - Full Set List and Details". Harmonix. 2009-06-15.

Thanks Michael.Ciampi (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Michael.Ciampi

As the Bealtes DLC is not compatible with the rest of the series, it is not being included there but you can see it at the game's article. Also, the tracks from the country pack that have not been out as DLC are listed in the upcoming song section - they can't be added until they're actually out as DLC. --MASEM (t) 22:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

DLC To Watch For

Mentioned in the article are Queen, Nirvana, Tom Petty, Iggy Pop, The White Stripes, Pantera, Talking Heads, Korn, and The Rancontuers. UltimateSin01 (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

These are already listed. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This New Format is Not Good

We need to revert back to the old page, or create a new page that lists ALL RB DLC in one place. The new format is confusing, and it now takes 3+clicks to find the information needed, instead of the 1 click before. Very confusing. Very dissappointing. I will probably no longer use this page, as it no longer makes any sense. Way to go, team! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shkdwnstrt (talkcontribs) 16:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Complete list of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The general consensus was that this is needed, and is easier to use. All you have to do is click the Full list link in the infobox on the right when the page loads to see everything. It's one extra click, not three. We can't please everyone, but that's only one click to get the full list, so it isn't an imposition. --Teancum (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone had changed the shortcut link of "Rock Band DLC" to point at the banner on the main article page. Can we get this reverted back to show the most recent list/upcoming songs please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Good idea -- doneGreen tickY --Teancum (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
--Thank you, but unfortunately it still points at the banner :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
If the Complete list of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series has all the DLC for the RB series should it include the Upcoming list aswell? UltimateSin01 (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree -- it probably should. I dunno how easy that is to implement as I haven't looked into it, but if it's not cumbersome it should be done. --Teancum (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Rock Band Network DLC?

I'm just wondering how this will be handled. Hopefully it gets it's own page with a dated listing of when the song was added to the "Network". I ask because apparently (according to some members on SA) that the beta testers for RBN are seeing content as of today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

RBN will be treated as separate content. Exactly how it will break down, we don't know yet, but it will be included. --MASEM (t) 22:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the new format/article splits

Consensus was reached a while ago that the DLC article needed to be split for easier access. As a result, there's no "main" DLC article anymore -- there are three "year" articles (2007, 2008, 2009) and a "full" article. Because of the nature of the split, nobody thought it was wise for shortcuts with general titles ("RB DLC", "Rock Band DLC") to redirect to the "full" article. But I didn't think it was any smarter for these redirects to go to the 2009 page (as most of them did by default after the split). Someone mentioned that the "downloadable songs" section in the Rock Band article could be the new anchor for the DLC articles, so I edited several of the redirects to head there. Needless to say, this setup isn't perfect and things are still kind of a mess (up above, some have already requested for the redirects to head back here, to the 2009 article).

I don't know about everyone else, but I'd like to see a new "Downloadable songs for the Rock Band series" article that could serve as an anchor/disambiguation page for all of the new DLC articles with clear direction towards the three year articles and the full list so there's no confusion as to what leads where and what the main, or most general RB DLC article is. But several opinions are factoring into this and we haven't sorted it all out yet. It all adds up to a lot of work for solving a couple of small, but important issues, so the best you can do is chime in if you have any ideas and be patient with the process.

Please don't freak out and run around in circles. Such actions have proven to be counterproductive in the past. T. H. McAllister (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Wii column

With today's announcement, I think we're down to 6 or 7 songs that aren't yet for the Wii (As of next week additions). All are in 2008

  • Three are covers that have seen been "superceded" by master version (two Rush, one Iron Maiden)
  • Three are songs that were made available for free ("Charlene", for example).
  • The only odd one is "Real World" by AAR.

We can either wait one more week (next Friday), which should, barring anything weird, put the Wii on parity with 360 and PS3 for next week's songs (Talking Heads,etc) and the upcoming songs, or we could remove the Wii column now and mark the 7 songs as "Not yet available for Wii". The only thing that's stopping me from doing the last is some RS that confirms on the Wii's parity with DLC. The announcement for today's songs *does* say there's 600+ songs for the Wii, so certainly that's one sign that they're close. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC) i think its time to remove the "Available For Wii" Row, since we are down to 7 songs (Charlene, Real World, Limelight (Cover Version) , Number Of The Beast (Cover) , Working Man (Cover)) i think its time for it to go Chickenator You could remove the column and footnote the songs that are not released on Wii yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree here, the Wii column is now unnecessary. Wii tracks seem to be coming out at the same time as 360/PS3, and it looks like the back-cataloging of songs for Wii has stopped. We can just footnote the few songs that are not available. I'll try and do this when I get a chance. - Runch (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that this is the third week in a row without any Wii "catchup" songs mentioned, I believe that the Wii column is mostly finalized, and that the few songs not Wii-d can be footnoted across all tables. I will do that later today. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Spock's Beard To be added to Rock Band. All ten albums

Songs we will be initially charting:

   * Onomatopoeia
   * Surfing Down the Avalanche
   * All Thats Left
   * As Long As We Ride

FROM There is a lot of work involved in charting songs for RockBand, so they have chosen four songs to start off with and will add more later. So if you don't see the songs that you'd really like to play to on RockBand, don't worry, they will be there eventually.

Sorry I am new here, how can I get these added and should they be?

Musicinwidescreen (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)musicinwidescreen

--No mention of it has been made by Harmonix, which is the end all be all to new DLC news. If nothing is stated by them, then it is only rumor and speculation. Also, MGA is an independent charting promotion, using the Rock Band Creator that allows everybody to chart their own songs. So technically, this would not be considered official DLC in the first place. (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This is definitely content on the Rock BAnd Network, so would not be included in this list. I think because of how much user-generated content can be made from this, we're going to only be able to put up songs when they actually appear on the network instead of when they are reported as such. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Songs on upcoming list already released

Quite a few songs on the Upcoming list were already released as part of the "Country Pack" on disc. Seeing as I know of no other song released to a track back disc THEN to dlc, these songs should be removed from the "Upcoming List".

They were there well before the Country Pack disc was announced, meaning the original thought (here anyway) was that they would be DLC. It is obvious now they will not be DLC. (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but if you read the reference:
"Thirteen of the on disc tracks are brand new to the Rock Band platform and will be exclusive to the Rock Band Country Track Pack disc for a limited time before joining the Rock Band® Music Store as downloadable content."
You'll find they're going to be released as DLC later on--Teancum (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Wired goes nuts with DLC news...

[url= Look at all of these!] How do we want to do this? -- TRTX T / C 03:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What we can add has been added or already exists. The yet unknonw Queen and Racotures songs will just have to be denoted like they are already. --MASEM (t) 06:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

DLC Hacker leaking upcoming songs

Somebody apparently has gained access to Nintendo's servers...and each week leaks the content that he finds. This week, he apparently identified next week's DLC. This sounds like something that will be a weekly occurance unless Nintendo either changes its update policy or HMX beings moving up their announcements. Just a heads up to keep ALL of this info off the table since hacks/leaks are NOT confirmation. -- TRTX T / C 04:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

this isn't a hack at all, he just looks for a pattern, since each song is given a number based on when it was released, so he looks for a pattern, then posts in on the gamesurge forums User:Chickenator
could one of you post the link here in the discussion?Recycledmaterial —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 13:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum. -- TRTX T / C 13:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously...we're in the discussion. You can't discuss things if you aren't willing to let people be aware of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Recycledmaterials (talkcontribs) 23:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I refer you to the top of the page: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2009 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series article. What TRTX is saying is that the URL doesn't matter - it doesn't have to do with improving the article. --Teancum (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The "hack" is unofficial and has no connection to any reliable source. -- TRTX T / C 03:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC) isn't an official source either but the songs they've mentioned are up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Recycledmaterials (talkcontribs) 14:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Wired is a reliable source and identified their source as someone in HMX. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
No. Not only does the article not state who their source is it also says that the source is close to HMX not in HMX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Recycledmaterials (talkcontribs) 15:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
If you are attempting to argue that a random forum poster is a more reliable source than Wired Magazine, I would ask that you reconsider your current stance. -- TRTX T / C 14:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Also per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources the source has not been deemed unreliable, yet forums have. --Teancum (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If YOU were to say that forum posters bare no truth then I'd ask YOU to reconsider. is no better than a random forum poster as they'll try to get any news over the competition that they can just as a forum poster would. And at this point, the article is purely rumor at this point as well. I'm not asking you to automatically put any speculation found on a forum, I'm asking that when there is a source that is this consistent that you get off your high horse and at least make it available as you are other speculations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Recycledmaterials (talkcontribs) 21:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a "high horse" thing. It's "that's the rules of Wikipedia" thing. I'm sorry, but you'll have to get over it. --Teancum (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is because like I said I am not telling you to put it in the article I am asking that you let people discuss it here by letting them see it before you completely throw it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Recycledmaterials (talkcontribs) 00:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be further discussed because it is not a reliable source. And Wikipedia is not a forum to discuss thinks which are not related to the article itself. This source is not reliable, it won't be used, and we are not going to use the talk page to talk about upcoming DLC unless it relates to the article. There is no arrogance. There is you not being familiar with WP policy, but that's about it. -- TRTX T / C 02:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
He is reportedly no longer going to leak the upcoming DLC, so this discussion is now null and void. Wildonrio (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Anvil - Thumb Hang

I removed this one from the confirmed for release category. If you read the Billboard source, you can see that this song was confirmed by one of the band members. Seeing as an Anvil pack came out and the song was not there, seems like a case of an artist giving the source/rights to HMX - but this doesn't mean the song will be released. Plus, this goes against our policy of only listing songs confirmed for release by HMX. - Runch (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Flight of the Conchords

From the Emmy red carpet, TV Guide interviewed the group and they stated they have 3 songs coming to RB (which ones, don't know). [2] I think it's still iffy to include it, but another band to watch out for in the news area. --MASEM (t) 02:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Nowadays, of course, we have to consider whether the artists are talking about the Rock Band Network, especially since FotC is a Sub Pop group. --Maxamegalon2000 05:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[updated] - Rock Band Network confirmed. Probably should adjust articles appropriately. -- TRTX T / C 01:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

incorrect link

"Songs are also available through a special promotion." The link for promotion isn't the good one, it gets to rock band serie main page instead of the promotion section.

All 3 pages ('08, '09, Complete) were updated. They were never changed when the article made the split. Good eye.--猛禽22 20:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"Killed by Death"

Hey, "Killed by Death" should be changed to "Killed by Death '08". Its a re-recording just like "Ace of Spades".

Confirmed and fixed.--猛禽22 04:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Kula Shaker

The songs are definitely $2 on the Marketplace (if not, I really need to get my eyes checked), but I can't fix it myself. (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Somebody to Love

In Upcoming Songs, "Someone to Love" by Queen is listed. It should be "Somebody to Love." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Name change of article suggestion

Just wanted to suggest renaming this article, at least the beginning. I can't quite wrap my head around what might be a suitable change, but essentially where I feel there's a problem is that some of the "TBD" DLC releases might not necessarily be coming this year; at least I haven't heard any confirmation as such (I guess this currently only pertains to the unreleased tracks of the Country and Metal Track Packs). Someone might conclude that they'll be coming out in 2009 since the title of the article only states that year. Maybe "2009/upcoming in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series"? That still sounds weird to me, though. Thanks for your time. GillanTheVillain (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Foo Fighters 03 on November 3rd


It will consist of 4 songs, and apparently Best of You will be one of them.-- (talk) 01:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


Yeah, don't know how to explain it, but it's pretty easy to tell something is wrong with the article's coding. It used to be a single list, but now it's broken down into what looks like the respective articles themselves, and if this was intentional, then it seems a little redundant to have this article and the DLC lists by year. (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's related to a few edits on the transcluded pages as well as this one. I'm going to try and see if I can fix it. -- TRTX T / C 23:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
the leading "noinclude" tag was missing, likely removed automatically by the bot that removed the AFD notice. --MASEM (t) 23:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Couple of notes (one regarding LEGO)

So going forward, LEGO will support existing Rock Band content. However it won't support ALL songs. So we need to come up with a way of identifying these. One suggestion I have is to remove the column about Wii availability and change it to a footnote on the appropriate songs. This would allow us to appropriate the "Available for Wii" column and turn it into a "LEGO Compatible" column.

The second issue: The "Promotions" section should be split up between the year articles similiar to the tables, with their contents transcluded to the main page. I realized this issue after having to add the Brutal Legend promo in two different articles. -- TRTX T / C 14:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The repurposing of the Wii column seems fine for this purpose, given that it sounds like neither the number of LRB-compat songs or LRB-excluded songs is going to be small (and thus could have used footnotes). --MASEM (t) 14:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

EU Wii Column

I have reverted the addition of the Wii column for the recent European release of RB2. I understand the intent, and while it is unfortunate that Europe is a year off from the NA release and thus will slowly be filtered the existing content, tracking this per region is not helpful, particularly when we're trying to get rid of that column or at least repurpose it for Lego Rock Band (above). The Wii column basically states that the song track has been converted into a song for the Wii version and thus the only limitation on obtaining it is any licensing and scheduling issues on the EU side. If after all is said and done that the EU Wii store backcatalog is considered completed by HMX but there are songs not available in EU that are available in NA's Wii store, then we can footnote those, but right now, it's certainly not clear how fast we'll find that out. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Wii Availability

I think we can remove this now, since all the songs except for 3 have been included. We can just add a note to it's release date it's not available for the Wii (yet). -- ROMaster2 (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we agree on that, but we are going to keep it around until after Lego Rock Band comes up, and repurpose that column to indicate which tracks are usable in LRB due to its content filter. --MASEM (t) 15:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Missing No Doubt Singles

I don't have a clue how to do this editing stuff but I just noticed this list is missing the release of No Doubt - The Singles, a whole album released some time ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

They were released in 2008. To see the 2008 list of DLC go here --Teancum (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Clean this page

This discussion page needs to be cleaned up when matters are dealt with. Also, there are songs in the "upcoming" section that were released under the country track pack name. Possibly move them to the DLC list? I don't know if you can get them without the track pack though.--Symonds1990 (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The tracks under the Country Track Pack haven't been released in the DLC store yet, as they are only track pack exclusives, same with the metal track pack. Which is why we keep them there.--猛禽22 23:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

LEGO Rock Band

I strongly urge inclusion of a column on which songs are also compatible with this game on the PS3. Thank you. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

We plan to repurpose the Wii column (since less than 20-some songs aren't on Wii yet) for this, and I've noticed now that the master music list at has the LRB availability noted as well. I think we were waiting for that content to settle down. --MASEM (t) 01:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC) lists 183 DLC songs for LEGO Rock Band

Info here. While the link is a forum thread, the thread uses the page as a source. So I would say this info is somewhat official. The only question is, how do we approach this? I still like the idea of turning "Wii Availability" to "LEGO Compatibility", and then taking the handful of songs still not on Wii and tagging them with a footnote. -- TRTX T / C 14:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I love this idea. Let's do it. Wildonrio (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Its about 25% of the songs, so that's in the threshold of reusing the Wii column for this purpose (too large to use footnotes). And yes, and Wii songs not yet available should be tagged and footnoted. I wouldn't necessary call it "compatibility", but more like "Playable in Lego RB" with an explaination of the filter. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

More songs have been added as of today. The total is now up to 281. I'm guessing the updates are coming at a steady pace due to whatever process is required to approve the tracks for use in the game plus the updates within the servers to make them available for it. Because of this, I would suggest waiting to update the wikipages until we get official word from HMX regarding the list being "final". That way we don't have a situation in which we are missing songs due to not catching all songs added each time. -- TRTX T / C 13:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I recently checked and it showed 342 DLC songs can be used for LEGO Rock Band. UltimateSin01 (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wii column to LRB column

I've gone ahead and transformed the Wii availability column into the Lego RB content one using as the source. The few non-Wii songs are a new footnote (e) for the table. Note that I moved from the checkmark/X template to simple colored cells, as per WP:ACCESS we shouldn't be using just graphics to denote information in a table. --MASEM (t) 20:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What is being used to verify a songs inclusion? As there are a few songs just scanning the list that I know are incorrect ("Hey, Johnny Park!") and a few that I suspect are included (three instrumentals from Texas Flood) -- TRTX T / C 20:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm assuming -- with FF (Family Friendly) being what can be played in LRB --Teancum (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
That's exactly what I used. Mind you, I did this manually and admit there may be errors. --MASEM (t) 22:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Texas Flood Instrumentals Playable in LRB

I don't want to screw anything up trying to fix this myself, but the DLC list claims that the three instrumental tracks from the Texas Flood album are not playable in Lego Rock Band, but they are playable (unless you go to play them as vocalist, obviously). They are obviously appropriate for the game, since there are no words in these songs to make it inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sperin4 (talkcontribs) 20:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming artists

Three of the bands listed in the "Upcoming" section (Elton John, Korn, and Iggy Pop) have now been included with Lego Rock Band (and via export-like download, Rock Band). It seems prudent to remove then from the "Upcoming". --TravisBradshaw (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Those listed upcoming bands are specifically for DLC in the upcoming future, not as an export.--猛禽22 03:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
That's not the case. The single cited source for the upcoming Elton John, Korn, and Iggy Pop tracks is and the source clearly states: "Tracks from Queen, Nirvana, Tom Petty, Elton John, Iggy Pop, The White Stripes, Pantera and More Coming Soon to the “Rock Band™” Platform" These three artists are now on the Rock Band Platform and there's no longer a credible source to indicate that further DLC is forthcoming from Elton John, Korn, or Iggy Pop. I would contend that they should be removed from the "Upcoming" artists section until/unless an announcement is made that there are still pending tracks in the DLC pipeline. --TravisBradshaw (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
In the classic words, "I think you're reading too much into this." Give it some more time than a week after the game comes out. -- TRTX T / C 06:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I'd have to agree with TravisBradshaw. The source didn't indicate DLC specifically, so we're crystal balling this a bit by saying it's coming as DLC. At least turning it around and tying those artists simply to "Rock Band Platform" we can solidify the statement -- they've come to it via LEGO Rock Band. I'd say those three need to go. Unless things are more clearly specified as DLC only in another source then they've been covered. If an announcement for Halo 3 content appeared and it came in the form of a title update that gives new features, we wouldn't keep the source assuming it would actually be DLC maps. --Teancum (talk) 13:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
To provide more context for the announcement, chronologically it falls after the announcement of Lego: Rock Band, but before the announcement of the Lego: Rock Band song list, making the statement the only acceptable PR verb-age at the time to announce bands that would be appearing in Lego: Rock Band. I would edit them out, as nothing short of original research could be any more clear, but I haven't made 10 edits to wikipedia since (finally) registering and I so I can't edit a semi-protected page. Someone who can edit the page should removed Elton John, Iggy Pop, and Korn from the list of Upcoming artists. --TravisBradshaw (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you guys. Therefore removed unless another source can be found confirming that there are more songs from these artists on the way. Rob Sinden (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Brand New? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Alive by Pearl Jam not in Lego PSN

I just downloaded the "Alive" track and it is NOT appearing in my PS3 version of LEGO Rock Band. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

We're aware of the differences between's list and the songs actually available in the stores online. It's going to be a bit of work to go through the store and manually confirm over 800 songs... -- TRTX T / C 21:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Missing songs

it seems to me that some songs on the list are missing, such as Welcome home by Coheed and Cambria. -- (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This is only the DLC; songs from RB1 or Lego RB are not included here. --MASEM (t) 03:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Total Song Count/Albums

Why is the total song count for all songs across the platform with the title of this page is downloadable. It should be listed as such meaning only stores thru the music store and the 20 from rb 2 DLC extras. Exported setlists and songs not in the store that are exclusive to disc sets (they will be at a future time). Also the section has 2 "completed" albums. This is not true. Boston is missing the Brad Delp composed song Let Me Take You Home Tonight. Nevermind by Nirvana is missing 2 songs due to issues with master tracks according to the reason live at reading was the version included with GH5. That is why there is no complete album listed with either. (Qtheking (talk) 05:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC))

You might try to make your point clearer. What exactly are you suggesting? -User:Knubblers —Preceding undated comment added 00:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC).

outdated links

links 8 9 and 12 are outdated and no longer have worthwhile info but i dont have the power to change them can someone please do that? (User:thecoolkid) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 page created/added to templates

With the announcement of songs for next week done, I've created the 2010 page, transcluded here, and added it to the templates, and moved the artists/songs that are still to come to the Upcoming section on the 2010 page (yes, this temporarily leaves two "upcoming" sections, but that situation resolves in 5 days). --MASEM (t) 15:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Good work, even if it totally confused me for a second when I instinctively clicked on the link before Upcoming and wondered why I was looking at a mostly empty page. :) EVula // talk // // 17:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I redirected the 2010 talk page here as with other years, just to ensure we don't get any conversations happening in two places. --Teancum (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Country songs missing from Upcoming Songs

There are still a few songs from the Country Track Pack Disc that haven't yet made it to the music store (On The Road Again for example). Why were they removed from the Upcoming Song list? JedEgan (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If I had to hazard a guess, it's probably because they've been released, just not on the music store. They aren't "upcoming". EVula // talk // // 17:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe when JedEgan made the above comment, an anon or another editor had removed all the country track pack songs despite that only 7 of the 13 have actually been DLC were released. That change was since reverted; the songs like "On the Road Again" are still scheduled for release TBD. --MASEM (t) 18:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly it, when I looked at the list they'd all been removed and have been re-added since I posted. Also, this article is for DLC so despite them being released on a disc they are still Upcoming for DLC according to previous discussions held. JedEgan (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The Who superbowl

They just had a commercial on VH1 Classic suggesting that after the Superbowl, additional Who tracks will be available. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Dates Messed Up

I noticed that on the 2010 list the songs from last week's metal track pack + Godzilla are all below Tom Petty's tracks. Can someone please fix the order of those track packs. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by S1ckH4nds (talkcontribs) 04:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That is correct. Petty tracks were out two weeks ago, the metal tracks this last week. --MASEM (t) 06:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Ooops, my bad. I see what you mean - on sorting by date they are wrong. They should be fixed now. --MASEM (t) 06:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Updating stats

Just a heads up, I've added[3] a comment inside the total stats to make sure that we can track when the table has been updated; nothing from 2010 had been added. Hopefully that'll let us keep it a wee bit more up to date. EVula // talk // // 15:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

including list of songs in Who S-mashup?

I know they're not individual, but the press releases outline each song in the mashup. Should we include that list? In the table, or as a footnote? (we definitely should not advertise each song as its own, that's misleading). --MASEM (t) 20:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The song is linked to information regarding their performance at this year's Super Bowl. Previous Super Bowl articles have had the halftime section fleshed out after the event is over. So by the this time next week, the "song" article will have more than enough info. To me including all songs in the medley is too much like a catalog or game guide. -- TRTX T / C 00:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with TRTX. Plus, it already says all of the songs that will be in the medley in the promotion section. estemshorn happy new year 00:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the press release doesn't list the songs in the mashup; it lists songs previously released for Rock Band. --Maxamegalon2000 00:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
True, but my guess is either they purposely just mashed a bunch of songs previously made on rock band, or that is the medley that is going to be played during halftime, and it's just a coincidence that they have already been previously released. ☻estemshorn (T/C)☻ 00:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The mashup is a previously recorded version of the same performance the Who will be doing during the game tonight. The songs they will be performing were revealed by the band themselves during interviews over the past few weeks. -- TRTX T / C 16:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Regardless, once the songs in the mashup are known , (whether RB or not), we should list them, and as I found, likely best in

the "Promotion" section. (as opposed to the table). --MASEM (t) 16:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That is not what the promotions section has been used for. The goal of that section has always been as a place to list songs available via means not associated with the in-game music stores. It's treading into Game Guide territory, as well as turning this into a catalog, when the neccesary information is all available within the song link. I compare it to any other situation in which two songs are joined together ("Long Time/Foreplay" or "The Hellion/Electric Eye"). We don't include any info about the combination because it's available in another article if the user really cares enough. -- TRTX T / C 17:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll note that the decade that the mashup is listed in , in game, is 70s hits, but the website says different. (I checked some other (live) tracks to see whats consistent, and they're all placed in the live version decade). Which way do we go here? --MASEM (t) 16:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought our goal was, when faced with conflicting reports, to go with the website. This is because anybody viewing this page can confirm the contents on the page even if they don't have the game. -- TRTX T / C 16:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw somewhere that dawn patrol doesn't have a guitar part

If that's true, then somebody needs to add the note for that... (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC) True! "Dawn Patrol" doesn't have a guitar part! That's the first time Rock Band didn't put a guitar part! —Preceding unsigned comment added by S1ckH4nds (talkcontribs) 23:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Bryan Scary

On the website for the new album Daffy's Elixir by Bryan Scary and the Shredding Tears, it says that the song Andromeda's Eyes from their EP Mad Valentines will be a "Rock Band downloadable level" this year.[4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broc.burmeister (talkcontribs) 19:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

We'll have to wait to see if it's RBN or RBDLC. -- TRTX T / C 16:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Disturbed 02

I found this:

I didn't know if I should've added it or not considering that Facebook isn't always a reliable source.--F-22 RaptörAces High 01:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

As the normal announcement of next week's DLCs is tomorrow, better to wait. --MASEM (t) 01:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Third Eye Blind and RBN

While we've had info that Third Eye Blind is coming to RB with re-recorded songs, these just appeared on the Rock Band Network list - eg they aren't coming as official DLC. Shall we keep them here? --MASEM (t) 03:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Given recent discussions in the AFD, I was going to rewrite that section to be more encyclopedic anyway. I will drop Third Eye Blind since typically blogs/myspace/twitter aren't too reliable of sources. -- TRTX T / C 14:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

More OK Go?

[5]; last question asks about music games, mentioning packs for GH5 and Rock Band (the GH5 pack is out this week). As IGN, these are no people that would necessary screw up this type of info, but... include-able? --MASEM (t) 21:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a typo, as earlier in the article they mention "Band Hero" instead. -- TRTX T / C 21:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Roadrunner Pack is now a 5-Pack

Here. The Roadrunner pack had to be resubmitted as a 5-pack without the "Runnin' Wild" track, which is now only available as a single. We should probably note this in the page by changing the songs to "Single" and adding a footnote. -- TRTX T / C 23:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreeed. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The White Stripes Genre

I've noticed the genre put under the White Stripes is "Alternative." Seeing from Rock Band's point of view, it needs to be changed to "Rock." Also, the FutureHeads need to be put under "Punk." Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by S1ckH4nds (talkcontribs) 21:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Deprecated notes code

I noticed that the original tags we used as footnotes are being deprecated. Unfortunately this is leading to some VERY messy looking tables due to the extended length and size of these notes. is there a different way we can set these up that aren't so obtrusive? -- TRTX T / C 18:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Instead of "Rf" use "Ref" and instead of "ent" use "note". They're used in the exact same manner, so you don't need to change any parameters. --Teancum (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
So we can use "e|e" instead of "note=" whatever? That'd be great! -- TRTX T / C 21:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Other hendrix albums

Reading the article [6], while it is not exactly stated, it strongly implies that there are three more Hendrix albums coming. I feel this is sufficiently strong evidence to include the three as "upcoming albums". --MASEM (t) 14:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Complete agreement; it's pretty clear that the Axis: Bold as Love tracks are just the first wave of Hendrix DLC. (I'll be such a happy camper when I can play Watchtower in Rock Band...). EVula // talk // // 15:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I've read and re-read the article, and I just don't see it. I do see references to Are You Experienced? and Ladyland, but only in the context of asking why they picked this specific album instead of one of Hendrix's others. To me that doesn't read like confirmation of anything. Yes, it does suggest more Hendrix coming, but nothing specific. -- TRTX T / C 15:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Two lines: "RS can reveal that his legendary albums are coming exclusively to Rock Band with a wave of downloadable content thanks to Harmonix, MTV Games and Experience Hendrix." and "Rock Band will dole out Hendrix’s music in connection with Experience Hendrix and Legacy Recordings’ own CD/DVD remasters of Hendrix’s three studio album and the posthumous release First Rays of the Rising Sun." With everything else said, I think it's completely fair to list them. Now, I'm willing to wait for the normal DLC presser from HMX that should be out today/tomorrow for this and see if that adds anything. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I think "additional music" is a good approach for now. Assuming it's specific albums and not packs of singles or something else to me would be taking too much of a fan approach to the content. -- TRTX T / C 15:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I like the "more songs later" handling of that as well. EVula // talk // // 18:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Week of 4/5 DLC (Anberlin, Skillet)

I don't know how to add something to that table, but please do so because as of now it's incomplete. Thanks Allyoupeoplearevampires! (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Funk & Rock Dilemma

Has anyone noticed that the genres of the three funk songs in the actual game itself are now classified as rock? Baffled as I was, I went to look in the music store only to see that the songs are classed as funk, here's a thread that reminded me about it:

Should we look at changing the genres from funk to rock? I'll wait for your opinions.--F-22 RaptörAces High 23:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If the sources say Rock, that's what we say. -- TRTX T / C 02:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Two sections of References/External Links?

I'm not sure we need two sections of References and External's been like this for months, and I've been trying to fix it, but I haven't been able to...Black Yoshi (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was quite the adventure! Anyways, I've fixed it up. --Teancum (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

May 4 DLC?

[7] Looks like a quality writeup. Any opinions on the validity of the source? -- TRTX T / C 17:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's wait until HMX says it for sure; we're only about 20 hrs from the usual announcement, no rush. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
One thing that would be interesting to discuss (regardless of this rumor) is how we'd go about labeling songs in the table that are available in mulitple packs. For example: the 4 songs from The Singles also in Tragic Kingdom would now be avaiable as part of either pack. Any thoughts? -- TRTX T / C 19:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Confirmation about the songs.[8] Not sure how to handle the pack titles, though... EVula // talk // // 14:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Snoop Dogg

The DLC is announced as upcoming DLC since over a year be now. Shouldn't it be removed? SkySilver (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It was officially announced by Harmonix, so until we hear otherwise I wouldn't think so. --Teancum (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Runnin' Wild

It should probably noted that Runnin' Wild is no longer available for purchase as a single on Xbox 360, due to the Roadrunner Records issue a while back. I'm not sure about it's availability on PS3 or Wii - last I heard, it was available on Wii but not PS3. Appreciate it if someone could verify those two consoles. (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Dealing with postRB3 DLC

According to [9], future DLC once RB3 is out won't be playable in previous games (dur). New column for when that happens? Morph the LRB to be something else? --MASEM (t) 05:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

According to actual Harmonix developers, they don't know what they're doing yet, but it seems pointless to have a whole column to read "Yes" for every single song up to a certain point and "no" for every song after that.Chiphead (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

THE All-American Rejects?

I noticed the other day that one of the songs by The All-American Rejects ("Gives You Hell") had the artist listed without the "The." I made the change, however user Groudon199 reverted the change and said that the "The" is not displayed in-game. I don't own Rock Band personally, but I went ahead and checked the Rock Band music store on Xbox Live, and infact none of the songs by The All-American Rejects show the "The." Now, I don't know if this is true for in-game, however I assume that the name wouldn't change between the game and the store.

Now, the band's actual name includes the "The," so I'm just putting the question out there if we should keep the "The" on the existing ones and add to Gives You Hell, since it matches the name of the actual band, or if we should take it off to match how it appears in the store? If there isn't a response here soon then I'll go ahead and change Gives You Hell to add the "The" because I think that people will know the band best by it's name, and the existing ones with "The" are already set to sort as if it weren't there anyways.

Skootles (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Rock Band does indeed only refer to them as "All American Rejects". Since we're taking Rock Band's lead on how we display information, I'm inclined to leave it as-as; as long as our wikilinks go to the correct article, it's fine. EVula // talk // // 19:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
So what of the existing ones that have the "The" already, remove it to match how Rock Band displays it? Skootles (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Correct; if we're displaying "The" but the game doesn't, we should change our pages to match. EVula // talk // // 19:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

RBN songs

So, this isn't actually the "Complete list of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series" since all of the Rock Band Network songs are available as well (and are not on this page).

Would a rename be appropriate? JoshDuffMan (talk) 05:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is a better name without making the the title too long. I think the best way is simply to be clear this is the "officially" released material authored by HMX, and linked to the RBN song list. --MASEM (t) 05:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I think this is where we need to balance a title being 100% accurate with a title being something meaningful to the reader (who is, ultimately, the most important person). EVula // talk // // 16:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, all of the RBN songs are available only to Xbox 360 owners. Relatively few are available to PS3 owners, and none are available on the Wii. So, while it would benefit Xbox 360 owners to have RBN songs on this page, it would do little good to owners of other versions of the game... --Black Yoshi (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Uhh...where's the list of upcoming songs...?

Okay, for some reason the list of upcoming songs has been entirely replaced by what should be the last four sections of the article (Promotions, Exported Setlists, References and External Links)...can someone please fix it? I'd fix it myself, but I'd probably wind up deleting the entire article if I tried... Black Yoshi (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Uhh...nevermind, it seems to have been fixed...even though judging by the edit history, it seems that no one's edited this article between then and now... Black Yoshi (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Rumor heads up

OXM has printed that Metallica's full "Master of Puppets" album is coming to RB. [10] As it is their "rumor" section, we cannot include this, so watch for people trying to sneak it in w/o more official confirmation. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I say it's posible, Rock Band releases bunch of albums when a new game comes —Preceding unsigned comment added by GastroTV (talkcontribs) 21:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Stan Bush "The Touch"

Stan Bush (confirmed on Twitter) says "The Touch" is coming to RB [11] Not reliable to include, watch for confirmation/vandals to that point. --MASEM (t) 01:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

All-American Rejects, or The All-American Rejects?

Currently, the table has the band listed under both names for different DLC tracks. While the band is listed as "All-American Rejects" on the Harmonix site, other sources (the band's Wikipedia page, own website, MySpace, and album covers) all show the "The" as part of the band's name.

Does Harmonix's error trump the "correct" name here? Imdwalrus (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. When in doubt, we follow Harmonix's lead. Considering it's just a display issue (we can still link to The All-American Rejects while it looks like just All-American Rejects, it's not that big of deal, thankfully. :) EVula // talk // // 19:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Rock Band Network Megamix 01 is available.

It sais in this section that the Megamix is still under future release. Yet, I found it in the XBOX Live marketplace for free. Go there and see for yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gigakoops (talkcontribs) 18:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Total song number?

That info in the top right hand corner is quite outdated, I don't now how to fix it though :S (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done EVula // talk // // 15:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. 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 (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. (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 (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 (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 (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. 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. 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. 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. I think that would still be better than footnotes.

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)

We are not a shopping catalog; we're not here to help you find bargains or the cheapest items. The general pricing is important to put the costs in retrospect to other downloadable content or other materials. And it is ok to note which items were free or at a lower cost, but we're not here to let you quickly ID the cheapest songs in the game. --MASEM (t) 19:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
That's fine, but I'm not sure I see the distinction between sorting on Pricing and sorting on whether a track has Pro Guitar. My guess is, if you want to know all of the tracks that have Pro Guitar, it's because you want to purchase them, not because you are doing some sort of report. And perhaps you are writing an article and need that information quickly, but the same argument could be made that you might also want to write an article about why some bands release their tracks at half-price and may want that information quickly as well. I'm just not sure why one receives a column and the other a footnote, except possibly that fewer tracks have different costs than have Pro Guitar. Which is fine, but let's be specific that that's the reason. Peterrisser (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Considering that HMX has said that it takes fair effort - about the same amount of time - to author the Pro guitar tracks as it does to author the rest of the song, the identification of Pro Guitar features show which tracks HMX felt it appropriate to actually author the charts on. It's not just what songs have Pro Guitar, but what songs are interesting enough that HMX gave them pro guitar. --MASEM (t) 20:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks. Peterrisser (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

New pro upgrades

Shouldn't we just change pro guitar/bass support for the original songs to yes, rather then adding a new row for what isn't really a new song? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this was my intent when I included these. The original songs now can be changed to include these pro parts, but new table rows should not be present. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)