Acoustic Walk on with string arrangement

[U2girl]

U2 and Paul Brill - Walk On Acoustic

 

[popacrobat]

to this.

this is one of the few songs I actually like when stripped down to acoustic. saw them do this in Philadelphia for Vertigo tour (sans strings of course), and thought it was pretty excellent.

 

[alanah]

Lovely acoustic version of Walk On!

 

[Super Yo]

Beautiful version, and is a passionate interpretation by Bono.

 

[Rachel D.]

That's really good!

 

[Von Schloopen]

for the biggest band in the world, who's only concern is chart hits and $

, they do a pretty good job of hiding new songs in obscure places.

Does this get voted on in the "Best U2 Song Ever Poll"?

 

[djerdap]

How is this a new song?

 

[Thaavi]

Acoustic Walk On... whatta a waste of a good song! The same case like Wild Horses, it was just boring. These are the dangerous examples how U2 could be mediocre when they put away their sonic sofistiaction. Staring at the sun is another example. Only a very few songs stand this test. Maybe Stay, Angel of Harlem, All I want is you. And even theese are not better than the full band versions. So they should be very careful abou that.

This is a definite version of Walk On, it worked like a charm, don´t have the idea why they decide to change the arrangement. Nonsense...

U2 - Walk On @ 2002 Grammy Awards - YouTube

 

[FlyontheHorizon]

Acoustic Walk On... whatta a waste of a good song! The same case like Wild Horses, it was just boring. These are the dangerous examples how U2 could be mediocre when they put away their sonic sofistiaction. Staring at the sun is another example.

Um, okay. Whatever you say...

 

[lazarus]

Acoustic Walk On... whatta a waste of a good song! The same case like Wild Horses, it was just boring. These are the dangerous examples how U2 could be mediocre when they put away their sonic sofistiaction. Staring at the sun is another example. Only a very few songs stand this test. Maybe Stay, Angel of Harlem, All I want is you. And even theese are not better than the full band versions. So they should be very careful abou that.

Agree. With every single word.

 

[BVS]

don´t have the idea why they decide to change the arrangement. Nonsense...

I know, right? When will artist figure it out? Stop trying to change up arrangements or make your own interpretation when doing a cover, stick to the original because that's the one I know.

Sheesh! Stupid artists...

 

[LemonMelon]

U2 has always thrived on band chemistry. When you take away the rhythm section, you lose that, and the arrangement is pretty much guaranteed to be weaker.

The only acoustic version I like more is Stuck, and that's only because the studio version is so cheesy and overblown that the only possible direction was up.

 

[JUSTinPUSHPLAY]

it's actually a live version from Saitama, Japan in 2006, they just used the soundboard sans audience and overdubbed the strings, nice version though new it sounded familiar though

 

[djerdap]

U2 has always thrived on band chemistry. When you take away the rhythm section, you lose that, and the arrangement is pretty much guaranteed to be weaker.

The only acoustic version I like more is Stuck, and that's only because the studio version is so cheesy and overblown that the only possible direction was up.

This. Along with Stuck, the only song that worked for me in that Bono/Edge acoustic fashion was Please on the Elevation tour. Nowhere near the power of the full band version, but not bad at all.

 

[U2girl]

Stuck, Stay and Staring at the sun were all good acoustic.

 

[An Cat Gav]

Acoustic Walk On... whatta a waste of a good song! The same case like Wild Horses, it was just boring. These are the dangerous examples how U2 could be mediocre when they put away their sonic sofistiaction. Staring at the sun is another example. Only a very few songs stand this test. Maybe Stay, Angel of Harlem, All I want is you. And even theese are not better than the full band versions. So they should be very careful abou that.

This is a definite version of Walk On, it worked like a charm, don´t have the idea why they decide to change the arrangement. Nonsense...

U2 - Walk On @ 2002 Grammy Awards - YouTube

Totally agree.

 

[last unicorn]

I love most of the accoustic, stripped-down versions. Also quite enjoy the accoustic Walk On. I've always felt there's a sort of magic when they turn a stadium into an intimate place and play an accoustic rendition of a song. It's a quality of them as musicians that I totally appreciate. I don't think that every song works well acoustically, but I quite like that they are trying stuff. The accoustic OOTS that was released some months ago was great. It just gives their music another quality.

As for Walk On, I'm quite bored by the "regular" version, I don't care much for it, neither live nor the album version (that one even less); the accoustic one is nice for a change but it's certainly not the best thing they've done.

 

[Vlaco]

U2 has always thrived on band chemistry. When you take away the rhythm section, you lose that, and the arrangement is pretty much guaranteed to be weaker.

This.

 

[The Disciple]

How do U download these versions from the webpage?

 

[Danny Boy]

The two versions of Walk On were available for free a few days ago. They must have noticed the uptick in downloads and started charging for them.

 

[Thaavi]

Hey, I listened to it and it is nothing interesting, boring, predictable, not good.

 

[redhill]

Agree. With every single word.

Even sofistiaction?!

 

[Von Schloopen]

Acoustic Walk On... whatta a waste of a good song! don´t have the idea why they decide to change the arrangement. Nonsense...

All the other recordings of the song still exist. It's not as if this recording makes every other rendition self destruct. They're all still there. Nothing was wasted.