Jump to content

Talk:List of songs in Rock Band/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Stuff

1. I have an idea, instead of putting them by date you should put them by artist so "Simple Man" and "Gimme Three Steps" are together and also put the songs that are in packs on the table too, they can be bought by themselves, right? So "Message In a Bottle" and "Roxanne" and "Synchronicity II" would all be next to each other, it would just be easier to read.

  • We're working on making the DLC sortable. That'll solve this issue. Oren0 (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Since the new column is called "Pack", is it redundant to put "Metallica Track Pack 01"? To try and keep the columns from being two crowded, why not just have "Single" or an abbreviated pack name? (ex: "Metallica 01", "Oasis", "Punk 01" TRTX (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • If you think it's too crowded and you want to make the change, I wouldn't oppose it. I think it's better to have the full pack title as listed in the game though. Oren0 (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll preview before saving anything. The other option would be to keep Singles, Artist Packs, and Genre Packs seperate. Also, is the Oasis pack just "Oasis Pack" or is it "Oasis Pack 01" like the other artists? TRTX (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Just thinking out loud (and since it's a new comment I'll append after my previous one). Perhaps we should split DLC into three tables: Singles, Packs, and Albums. This allows us to elminate the "Pack" field, and would create a quick and handy set of links in the ToC/Outline of the page. I know DLC is sorta the "messy" part of this tier thing (though I really like how it looks now that we've got it up there), so it'll likely take some tweaking to get it the most efficient. With three seperate tables, it allows users to quickly jump from Album, Single, Pack. And we would keep the current "All pack songs are also available as singles unless noted". This way if the rules change for Albums, they can have their own note in the Albums section instead of footnoting 12 or so songs each time. TRTX (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It was like that before. The problem is that songs from packs can also be downloaded as singles. That makes separating them annoying if you want to, for example, buy a few songs and you want to look at the list sorted by artist to decide which. That kind of info is the reason we have these tables in the first place. Oren0 (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
why have the seperate packs chart if the same infomation is in the main chart? harlock_jds (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
* Good point. Having all the tracks in one table will make it easier to decide what singles you want from a certain artist, and if it's better to just grab a pack. TRTX (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

2. Instead of putting "currently unannounced" why don't you just put "TBA"?

3. Wasn't it confirmed that a Metallica album and "One" would be DLC?

4. Instead of putting a little star next to the songs why don't you put a bullet under the setlist that says "these songs were edited for language to mantain the T rating:

5. Missing sorting option that should be considered is the Genre sorter in the game. I do not have the resources or skills to do such a task. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.100.105 (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


the teir part of the table just causes confusion drop that idea the table needs simplicity not every little bit of info ion the game76.246.53.52 (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally agree. I think the tier information is overkill. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Listing the songs includined in teh game is agreat idea but every detail is overkill. What comes next, the number of notes in each song? Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion further up the page regarding why the tier information is being inclued. "Guide" Information would be something like # of Notes, placement of Overdrive/Unison Bonuses, and whether or not the song has a Big Rock Ending. The Tier information is being provided as a resource for those who are trying to make an informed purchasing decision regarding DLC. These aren't user-created tiers such as those seen in fighting game rosters. These tiers are official from RB and require no additional research outside of pulling the Tier from the game/content. Unlike the items I listed above, which would require a player to go through each song and personally tally each note or record the moment an Overdrive/Unison phrase occurs. TRTX (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
How are Bass tier's figured out? As far as i know you can not play Bass in single player. harlock_jds (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Bass Tiers are available through the Leaderboards -> Solo -> Bass. The tracks are listed and sortable just like in Quickplay. I was surprised to find they are in fact different (this is more prevalent in the DLC) TRTX (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, it is not an arbitrary tier selection, it is concrete as define dby the game. However, being it can be proven does not mean it is encylopedic. I personally enjoy the information I just question the encylopedic value of it. In short, if a professional encylopedia were to cover the game rockband, would they include every tier for every instrument? I disagree. However i have seen the discussions above. I would be interested in trying to get more people involved here to see if there is a consensus one way or the other. This should probably include people outside of the main editors of this article. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 17:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm all for getting rid of the tiers. People don't buy a song because it's easy or hard, they buy it because they like the song. Artist, Title, Pack Name (if applicable), and price (if we start seeing more oddly priced content) is all it really needs. Being able to sort it and everything is fantastic - but having the tiers there is just overkill. --Magus05 (talk) 07:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I just don't see why the extra info bothers anyone. Is it the clutter? What if we removed the word "tier" and narrowed the columns? Oren0 (talk) 08:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Removing "Tier" is one possible change. This can then be added to the initial page summary or in each section explaining just what the numbers mean. Also, the date could be abbreviated in the release column. ("Feb. 12, 2008") for example. This wouldn't affect sorting since that's handled by the span tags. And I know how to do it in HTML, but in Wiki markup I'm not sure if it's possible to have one cell occupy multiple columns. In that sense you could have "Tier" in one cell across the five columns and then have the five seperate instrument cells for sorting. TRTX (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Truth be told Magus, one of the reasons I was drawn to editing this page was because I wanted to konw the tiering of the DLC songs. The songs I like to listen to and have downloaded thus far haven't always translated into fun to play (early tier songs can be quite boring for more experienced players). Likewise, some of the songs I may never have listened to before have gotten some very long consideration once I had a chance to see how challenging they were. But that's more a conversation for a forum than here. And honestly, would we even need the release date by the line of thinking? If I'm looking at this list, do I care when the song came out? Or just that it's out and available to download? I would argue release dates are only important for annouced/upcoming content so a reader can gauge if they want to hold out on new purchases in favor of future content. TRTX (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I just think that the tiers causes too much clutter. It takes up more than half the page, and the information itself isn't even that useful. The average Rock Band player would probably not even understand what the numbers mean. If it didn't take up so much space, I probably wouldn't care that it was there - but tiers is literally half the page. And if we do decide on keeping the tiers, why do we have the tiers listed for songs included in the game? If you want to know how difficult it is, that information is easily available in game.--Magus05 (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't be against removing tiers from the on-disc songs, since as you said that information is readily available. I don't have time at the moment, but I'll try tonight to toy around with some markup and include a suggested table format that may help shrink things down for DLC. And I believe that numbers are used for Tiering vs. the actual Tier Names (Warmup, Nightmare, etc) because it takes up less room, makes sorting easier, and is easier to explain (Difficulty on a scale of 1 (easiest) to 9 (hardest)). If it makes more sense, we can drop the word "tier" (since that is more frequently associated with fighting games), and refer to the numbers as "Difficulty" instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TRTX (talk • contribs) 14:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I strongly support listing the tier information. After purchasing the Metallica pack, I do look at the difficulties of the songs when deciding to buy songs. I also use the tier information when playing the game and deciding which songs to play, sure its easy enough to find the tier info on a particular instrument but in BWT you only see the over all difficulty and not the individual levels. I searched for weeks and was not able to find a good place to obtain the song difficulties for DLC. I greatly appreciate the time people here have put into collecting and creating the tables with the tier info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.169.243 (talk) 07:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
(first time ever to add something to wikipedia. hope I don't break anything...) I also support leaving in the tier information AND adding in the decade & genre columns that have been debated back and forth. As TRTX mentions above, the primary difference between encyclopedic information and guide information is how the information is primarily used. Summarizing the categories (which are sourced from the game) does not impact or instruct the way in which one would play the game in question. However, having the information in the tabular format (love the table guys!) is nice because it allows easy sorting of the tracks to make purchasing decisions. Personally, I don't care for heavy metal songs, but do like the older classic rock ones. I don't want to have to click on 60+ different links and read the history of each song/artist to determine what genre the particular song falls under. The added sorting capabilities will become even more valuable as more content is released. Right now I complain about clicking 60 links, but by the end of the year it may be 200 links to sort through! Also, by efficiently organizing all the data, it may help those interested to get a good statistical picture of the types of music included. Being able to quickly see what genres/decades the game favors is highly informational for those trying to decide if the game and/or DLC is worth a purchase. Finally, my $0.02 on the table formatting - drop the word "tier" from all the cells and just leave the number, with a note outside the table to describe what the numbers refer to. Repeating the word "tier" so many times does take a lot of space without adding any value beyond the first instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.83.243 (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Decade and genre columns are redundant information and do not have a direct impact to the game. I would consider removing "Tier" from the columns and just leave the numbers. But genre/decade is way beyond what we need for this game. TRTX (talk) 02:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Devil's advocate here: the game sorts by genre and decade in addition to tier. Oren0 (talk) 06:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
While it does sort by genre and decade in-game, my view on including them is that it's not information exclusive to the game. The article is list of songs in Rock Band: So title is included because that's the song, and artist is included for disambiguation. Tiers are included because it's exclusive info to Rock Band, while Pack/Single status and release date is historical information regarding DLC. But to me, genre and decade are secondary information regarding the songlist. If somebody playing the game decides they want to learn more about the songs in the game, they can then click the song name (or artist) for the wikipedia article and find additional info there. The same can't be said for Tier, Pack, or DLC release date. TRTX (talk) 13:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
On the genre/decade debate, I still strongly feel that at least the genre should be included in the table for several reasons. First, like I mentioned before on 2/28, asking someone visiting this page to click on 60+ (and even more in the future) separate links to learn more about the songs is highly user un-friendly. Second, once a person starts clicking on all the links, they will find that the information for the different songs varies considerably in quality. Some song pages list the genre in an easy to find location. Others don't say a thing about what the genre is. Still others have either multiple genres listed, or list genres which are not part of Rock Band's sorting scheme. I have no clue what some of the genre classifications on these linked pages mean. What I do know is that Rock Band sorts songs in a particular fashion, and most people in my situation that are looking for information on the game have a preference for particular categories as defined within the game. So, from looking at the link destinations, it is clear that the particular genre sorting found in the game is exclusive to the game, and thus deserves to be included in the listing here. Now for the table layout, I would strongly suggest that a column for genre (as defined by the game) be added between the artist and instrument tier, and drop the "tier" words to make room for the new column. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.83.230 (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Magus, when I buy a song for Rock Band, I make my buying decision almost ENTIRELY based on the tier. I do not listen to North American music, so I have never heard of 90% of the songs in Rock Band (both the built in songs, and the DLC). I don't particularly like any of the songs in Rock Band from a musical perspective. I don't put most Rock Band songs on my mp3 player, whereas I've put many DDR, DrumMania, and Guitar Hero 1 songs on there. I just plain don't like most of the music in Rock Band. So when I buy new songs, it's entirely based on the challenge and gameplay that I think those songs will provide me. If the in-game store allowed me to sort songs by tier for each individual instrument, then I wouldn't miss the tier information on the Wikipedia page at all. But unfortunately, it only allows me to sort by overall-band difficulty, meaning it's a pain to find songs which are hard on drums and easy on everything else. 69.70.71.74 (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Feb 12. DLC Pack

According to HMX, the three tracks annouced on 02/11 (first available 02/12) will be listed as singles and as a pack. I've yet to confirm the pack name, and none was provided with the original HMX annoucement. I've updated the table to list the pack as Unknown with a footnote pointing to the original annoucement as verification. Feel free to remove this footnote once the official pack name is revealed. It was listed as "(Arguably) Punk 02" prior to this change. I apologize if that was the official pack name, but I checked here and in the history for any notes provided confirmation this is the actual name. I didn't find any, and it didn't look right. TRTX (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

  • My apology remains on the table. I have since confirmed this is the pack name. I've corrected my mistake. Also, I've set the Span tags to sort the new list as "Punk 02" without the "arguably", since to me it's a good idea to keep the Genre packs and Artist packs sorting together. TRTX (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI, Teenage Lobotomy is credited to 'Ramones' [1] --Ouzo (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Why would the new Ramones song be labeled as "arguably" punk if the old Ramones songs are listed under punk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonnieDarko7295 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

the DLC pack they are in is called the (Arguably) Punk 02 pack. the other Ramones song was in the pack called the 'Punk Pack 01'. It's simply the name of the song pack. harlock_jds (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's called "Arguably" because of the Police Track.165.139.32.1 (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


It's officially called "(Arguably) Punk Pack 02". That was verified when I changed it early this morning. Whether or not the songs are Punk or not is irrelevent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magus05 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a source for that name? We should keep things in line with verifiability and not put original research on here ;) Bassg☢☢nist T C 05:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
When you go onto the Marketplace to download it, it's called "(Arguably) Punk Pack 02". When you look at the content on your hard drive, it is called "(Arguably) Punk Pack 02". But if for some reason common knowledge doesn't work for you, then it is confirmed here, here and here. --Magus05 (talk) 10:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

An explanation of what a DLC is might be useful in the article. --Hypertext (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Are we really going to put {{incomplete table}} on the page every week?

It seems like we don't need that template there when we just need tiers for the new content. Oren0 (talk) 06:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose not, it seems like there's always at least one or two people that will come around each week and add in that information if they have it. Especially now that most of the DLC from way back has been filled in. (Does anybody have Cherry Bomb?) TRTX (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Something that's a similar situaiton: Are we going to footnote the songs each week for the one or two days when they're not on the PS3? The DLC article already addresses the time difference beteween 360 and PS3 releases. TRTX (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Albums

Wasn't "Appetite for Destruction" and "Californication" announced as DLC albums? Search on google and you'll find the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.28.141 (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Search on google and you'll find the site": no I won't :/ --SeizureDog (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought I remembered Californication being leaked and then dismissed as a false rumor. Oren0 (talk) 07:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible "Rumored Songs" section?

Just the more likely ones, such as the songs "announced" here (http://www.rockband.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29482). SgtPepper252(talk) • contribs) 03:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain those would really qualify as verifiable at this point. As more details come out they can be added. Bassg☢☢nist T C 05:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately the page just had it's Protected Status removed as well. Horrible timing considering that there may be an influx of people rushing to add the rumored list of songs. However, we could possibly curtail this by putting "Rumored Songs". If Harmonix has issued an official response that doesn't outright deny it, we reference that in the table and just let it go at that. We also need to get Protected Status back.... TRTX (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
If vandalism becomes a problem, we'll get it protected again. I'll add a note to the page as well. As for HMX, they made a statement on the RB forums (page 4 or so) that basically said the list is purely speculative and not to take anything as official until they announce it. I'm inclined to believe it's an accurate list (they did the same trick on the 11/20/07 content and it predicted lots of the releases until now) but it's certainly not verifiable for now. We'll have an interesting dilemma if IGN or similar reports this. Oren0 (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This has started to make it's way around the net. I've seen it on Kotaku, and I believe Joystiq as well. If it makes it to IGN it would be a good idea at that point to perhaps address it directly in a seperate section. You mentioned something similiar happened in Novemeber. If you're able to still locate references we could include that in the section as an example of leaked song lists. We could then directly address the list released today, include the new songs (no artists since there are some that are ambiguous (ex: Still Alive, Hysteria)) and provide a reference to the official response from Harmonix. There are tons of rumors that float around the web when it comes to songs, but I can only think of a couple that have gotten internet wide attention and recieved direct Harmonix response (that being this and the March OXM...provided that IS a far more reliable source than somebody on a forum). Something of this magnitude may be noteworthy enough to log. And if the rumors begin to play out (likely won't know until April) we can keep it around as historical reference, or remove it if it's later proven false. TRTX (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so I saw the news regarding the 02-19-08 DLC [2]. Is TeamXbox a legitimate source? I haven't seen anything on the Official RB forums (short of a fan made "Official Topic" that doesn't site anything itself). Also, all three of these tracks were in the "hacked" list released earlier this week. [3]. If these three tracks are confirmed between now and the Tuesday release date, I'm thinking we should give the leaked list a section with references to when it was leaked and the fact that three tracks off of it were released the following week. TRTX (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there's plenty of legitimacy to the leaked list. Like I said above, this same technique accurately predicted lots of DLC. But things can get delayed, changed, whatever. And even if we were sure it was accurate, it can't be added because it's not verifiable. Oren0 (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
i think that list is (at this point) as verifiable as the tier rankings for individual songs. its found on official files from harmonix. teamxbox posted about it, and we know the list is true, and everyone agrees. theres no controversial issue to avoid including the information, at that point its a semantics issue i think. like I said, no less verifiable than half the information already on the page. 70.53.51.183 (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that the tier rankings are facts from a finished product. Unless modified in a game patch, the tiers a song falls into is not going to change. This list of songs, while probably reliable, has no way to verify that they will end up in the game until officially announced. The tiers are facts about a finished product. This list of songs is not. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, if you have not seen it, there is an "official" response from a harmonix employee, found on page 7 of the thread from the forum http://www.rockband.com/forums/showpost.php?p=319266&postcount=69 They confirm that it is DLC, but also state it is not confirmed DLC if that makes sense. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 06:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering the issues we have with keeping the official download list rumor and troll free a "Rumored Songs" section would be a train wreck. We know about the 'list' and clearly those will be coming out but i don't see a issue with waiting until they are announces (or at least mentioned in a interview) before adding. harlock_jds (talk) 12:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

With the semi-protection now on, I don't see how a 'rumored' section would be that problematic. Here is a link to the leaked list: http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/51337 and here is a link to a confirmation from an MTV spokesperson stating that the list is "accurate but subject to change": http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/51337 I think these two things make this a valid section. Comparing it to other wiki pages that are subject to change (future UFC events for example) I don't see the harm in this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mm03gt (talk • contribs) 19:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the MTV link. I didn't see that before. I would say that does give it some better credibility than just a post on a forum. I'll start planning a sample section (will use User:TRTX/RB to put it together) and look back later to see what other people's thoughts are. TRTX (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It now says "unconfirmed and subject to change." I don't know what shacknews.com is but if we believe it to be a reliable source we can add it. We should have it as its own section (separate from announced stuff) and be very careful to explicitly state that it's unconfirmed. Oren0 (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
having simi protection only slows down the issue.. it doesn't get rid of it. I still say the whole concept of a 'Rumored Songs' is bad and i'm not sure just how noteable this 'list' is... esp after all the songs come out that are on the list. 21:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harlock jds (talk • contribs)
The fact that downloads are supposed to continue on a weekly basis for the rest of 2008, the issue of rumored songs isn't going anywhere. I think the size of this list, and the acknowledgment by Harmonix of its existence is extremely relevant, as these songs could make up the upcoming downloads for several months.Mm03gt (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
A google search turns up a number of places reporting MTV's comments. [| Wired being the first name I recognized]. They have the exact statement from the MTV spokesperson. I think this bears mentioning. TRTX (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
we already have a Announced songs section... it would be better to add it these than to create a whole new section harlock_jds (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The song 'Still Alive' now confirmed from the hacked list. More evidence, that it is legitimate (to those who feel the MTV acknowledgment wasn't enough)--Mm03gt (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll put something together with these songs, I just need some time to pull the references together. If anything the leaked list will have it's own "table" of sorts. It'll just be the titles, no artists since there's no guarantee. I'll put it in my user page under User:TRTX/RB before I add it. TRTX (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The NIN pack announced today is even more evidence that this list is legitimate. I think you're proposal makes sense.--Mm03gt (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
THe NIN pack was known about before the list, and i still say add them to the announced list if we are going to consider them announced. harlock_jds (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Good to see this table is finally going to be made. Thanks to everyone for the great response. SgtPepper252(talk)

A rough sample of what the page will look like with the new section is up at User:TRTX/RB. Feel free to comment in the discussion page. I'm very open to suggestions. Especially if somebody knows how to format the LONG list of song titles into a two columns. TRTX (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Formatting changes have been made. Awaiting other opinions prior to including the new section. TRTX (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I have several issues with the section in its current form:
  1. The timeline is irrelevant as I see it. I think there's too much background, who cares?
  2. Most of the songs are unambiguous. I think we know what Smells Like Teen Spirit is. There are only a handful that aren't 100% clear (D.O.A could be a one). It seems pointless for us to have this list if we can't attach artists to the clear ones.
  3. There's no reason to have anything that has been confirmed by HMX (Still Alive, NIN stuff, etc) or released already on this list. This should only be the stuff that's rumored/leaked but unconfirmed.
  4. Alphabetical sorting shouldn't include "The." Oren0 (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, here's my reasoning behind some of the thigns you observed. I'm willing to look into modifications. But just want you to know where I'm coming from.
  1. I don't see the timeline is totally irrelevant. Part of the reason a "rumored" section was contested is because it wouldn't be verifiable. Providing some background gives it more weight than just some random user (such as you or I) adding "I Want Candy" because we feel like it.
An explanation of how these songs were leaked is fine, but what happened on 2/21 and what happened on 2/22 etc seems over the top to me. I think there should be a three sentence or so lead in about the background which should explain the gist: a forum user cracked the list (and be sure you have multiple refs to reliable sources that reported this), several of the songs were subsequently announced, HMX made a statement that the songs are unconfirmed. I think more info than that is overkill. Oren0 (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. Though not all the songs are unambiguous, there is no verification of artists available anywhere for this list. Again. a number of artists would be speculation, even if some songs (such as Teen Spirit) aren't. I wouldn't argue with including artists, but only if artists (even in the case of Teen Spirit) are marked as speculated for those which are included.
I buy that. Oren0 (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. This I'll look into modifying. My original idea was to keep it as originally presented, incase the source article is lost.
  2. I just cut pasted the list from scorehero. I can reorganize the list with "The" less if when I re-working it.
I'll make some modifications to the section. But I feel the scorehero reference should remain somewhere. TRTX (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The current version is much better. It would be nice if we could add a few more reliable sources so that we can successfully argue against the notability/reliability concerns that will certainly pop up when this info is added to the page. Oren0 (talk) 08:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I could try to reword something on how the songs released since the leak have all been on the list. Also, you (or somebody else here) had mentioned that this happened back in November (I see references online to a list leaked on 11/20). If we had references to that list and how it was able to predict releases accurately that would lend more credibility to this one. The lack of this kind of info is why I've hesitated to add it. TRTX (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what to make of this: http://gamecentralnetwork.net/?id=2524 24 February 2008

That was confirmed to be a hoax. Oren0 (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Column widths and merge Other Songs

To make the Main Setlist and Bonus Songs tables have a consistent look (column widths), you could add this to both table headers:

! width="30%" style="background:#ddddee;" | Song title
! width="35%" style="background:#ddddee;" | Artist
! width="7%" style="background:#ddddee;" | Guitar
! width="7%" style="background:#ddddee;" | Bass
! width="7%" style="background:#ddddee;" | Drums
! width="7%" style="background:#ddddee;" | Vocals
! width="7%" style="background:#ddddee;" | Band

Also, I like the merged songs in a single Released Content table. Would you consider incorporating the Other Songs into it? You could simply put a table footnote for the OXM details. The release date was January 15th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.101.179 (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If we include that, they'll need to be two pieces of information included: one indicating it's not available via XBLM/PSN. And another indicating it's 360 exclusive. I would actually suggest renaming "Downloadable Songs" to "XBLM/PSN Downloads" or something like that. While "Other Songs" is changed to "Other Downloads" or again, something like that. TRTX (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Harmonix Pack info needs correcting

The three songs from the Harmonix pack have incorrect tiering (it was correct at one point and must've been missed while vandalism was being corrected). I don't have the info available to me at the moment, but all three are listed as Tier 9 Guitar, which I know is totally incorrect (Rock Rebellion is the only song that has a Tier 9 anything off of that disc). Can somebody with access to the OXM Harmonix Pack tiers correct that please? Update: It appears the mixup occured here [[4]], caused by a pair of reverts following some vandalism. I think the tiers as they're listed with SMC's revisions are the correct ones. I'd make the changes but I have no means of confirming the exact tier (only the knowledge they are not what they're current listed as) TRTX (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC) They're both tier 3. I'm looking at the game from my computer, and on guitar they sit on either side of Go With The Flow. (Sandswipe (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

Sprode needs to have Drums set at a Tier 4 and Band at a Tier 3. I had actually pulled off everything in an excel doc before the vandalism occurred so I still have a record of what everything was. Tuck420 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.165.196.84 (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, Shake is a Band Tier 4. Tuck420

Can you also confirm the vocal tier for Sprode? I don't recall it being higher than Shake the last time I looked at the Leaderboards. I'm going to check the DLC I have on my machine tonight to verify the tables. Some of that vandalism has yet to be corrected. TRTX (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

According to my spreadsheet, the vocals are correct. You may still want to check the game itself to be sure though.Tuck420 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.165.196.84 (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Scores and Stars

Seeing as this page is dedicated to the song lists, do you think it would make sense to include a chart, or several charts showing the scores required for each star level? It would be difficult to include all of the instruments, and various combinations of instruments, but I think it would be very helpful for visitors. Odds are if they are looking at this list, they're interested in the game somewhat. --Mm03gt (talk) 06:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not. The tier information is already too WP:GAMEGUIDE-ish for some. We can save face by noting that at least the tier information is readily available in the game. Not only are star cutoffs original research (for some songs they're speculative), but they're not verifiable and way over the top. Add to that the fact that you're talking at least 48 cutoffs per song (4*, 5*, 5G* for each of four difficulties on four instruments) not counting all sorts of band combinations, and it's way too much information. That kind of stuff belongs at Scorehero. Oren0 (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I support Tiering info because I see it as similiar to Guitar Hero's setlist structure (X-number of tracks split into 7-8 difficulty levels). What complicates things for Rock Band is that even though they do the same thing, they've got four additional sets (Bass, Drums, Vocals, Band) on top of Guitar. And all five are for the most part independent of each other. Also unlike GH, RB also has difficulty ratings available for DLC and Bonus songs. So there's more information to process, and thus it feels more clutered than the GH setlist articles...even though they both provide the exact same information. However, scores and star ratings are going way beyond that even. There might be something to a brief summary of how RB and GH differ in mechanics when it comes to scoring, however that's better left ot the Game Article than the setlist. TRTX (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Isn't there a good external link we could have for that information instead?--SeizureDog (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Still Alive

Could someone add Jonathan Coulton's song, Still Alive? It's been confirmed here: http://www.rockband.com/rockers_blog_entry/hmxsean/216671?redir=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.196.129.43 (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the table row for "Still Alive" with a reference to the video of Coulton's performance. The song (Though written by Coulton) is credited to "GLaDOS" in-game. This is similar to Timmy & The Lords of the Underworld, another song written by one party but performed by a fictional entity. TRTX (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it confirmed that it is a single, or could it possibly be part of a pack? (Video Game Tracks 01?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.79.5 (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The only confirmation I've seen (have to go find the source again), is that it'll be 99 cents. But no, there is no verification as to if it'll be a single or part of a pack. I've changed the entry to reflect this. TRTX (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

first full album

I realize that the leaked list referred to in the 'rumors' section of this talk page is not being added, however I wonder if the absence of the who on the list, and the presence of Nirvana might suggest that it will be the first album. Perhaps rather than saying which one will be 'first' as the article says, we should just say that both are forthcoming? --Mm03gt (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the whole last part of that paragraph should be reworded. It talks of the Metallica album, which was later determined to be unverifiable because of an old/vague source. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 05:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_songs_in_Rock_Band/Archive_3&oldid=1092053464"