Wow. A lot of stuff here.
Bob, I think you've hit something with the fact that digital often gets the bad rap because many people have heard A-List analog but few have heard A-List digital. In the same way that the digital mix busses suck because so many people who don't know what hell they are doing are mixing through them.
In addition, people who DO know what they are doing ignore that the two are very different mediums and as a result don't change their recording techniques. I recently was cleaning a closet and found a magazine with a very old report from the head engineer at, I think, Polar, who was talking about his first experiences with a 3324. His summary was that he would have to relearn recording because it was so different. This is the only time I've ever heard an older engineer say that. 20 years later, it is still true- most records are made with knee-jerk use of the methods learned early in careers, handed down from the past.
Third, while tape is the sound of rock, many great musicians- singers, guitar players, piano players alike- that I work with who have amazing tone and dynamic prefer digital. They always feel that their efforts are lost with tape.
Ultimately, all nostalgia aside, tape will continue to exist only on the margins of recording. Even if you are able to often use tape, you will still have to understand digital for what it is, and find out how to use its strengths, as much as several generations of analog recording engineers worked to make tape all that it could be.
Let's stop the bitching. Hell, most people don't even use the 16 bits we're given let alone the 20 they really could use. That's the challenge- to make a record no one's heard before. The race is on, guys. Go for it- use the new tool as a new tool instead of trying to make the same damn record everone's been making for the last 40 years. From the arrangements to mics to the placements to the gain structures, there is a whole lot of stuff that can be done very differently if the brain just opens up.
Best,
r.