I have just done a good few gigs acoustically(ie without amplification). These included arts centres; village halls(not that large,but a fair size, audiences up to about 140); pubs(in the bar). Now, not one single person came up and complained they couldn't hear(though I'm sure some may have had some difficulty, if they had hearing problems). But a lot of people always make a point of saying how thoroughly nice it is to hear instuments and voices through the air from the performer in the old way, un processed. Now, obviously you can't play rock and roll acoustically, I wouldn't want to. But playing acoustically seems to me a great thing to try, when performing the kind of music that was created that way. And I think there is a market out there for people who like it.
   It has been said earlier on this thread that you "have " to amplify music, so that enough people can hear the music to make it economic. Well, do you "have" to? It's perfectly easy to play a folk gig to two hundred people in a hall with nice acoustics without a PA. People often pay £10 to go to a folk gig, in fact they often pay a lot more. But let's say £10. So that generates £2000 on the door. A typical door deal would give the group 80%., ie £1600. £400 apiece, for a four person group(or a bit less after taking off the travel and some other expenses. You can generally get put up for free). Now, nobody can tell me you "need" to earn more than £400 per person a gig. You might like to, but that's another thing. Even if you only get 80 people in, you're still on £150+ a head.It's a living.
So, I'm totally in favour of acoustic gigs(really acoustic that is). Anybody got any new thoughts?(this is an old thread)