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