Does Analog Still Hold It's Charm?

As the many (or the very few) who follow this blog know, one of the reasons I started it was to ask a simple question - what happens to us as creative individuals when the world slowly moves from traditional, analog-type technologies and media to newer, digital-type media? By analog I would describe anything that creates a physical representation of an experience, expression or event; for example, a vinyl record is a physical object which mimics the sound waves with actual groves in it's surface. By digital, I mean things that can be broken into abstract, on and off bits and reproduced through computers or electronic means; using the music example, a CD is digital because it is an abstracted data stream which holds the information recorded in the studio, usually by analog means (mics and such). Now, a hidden assumption of this blog is that the analog objects and digital objects are significantly different, that there are positives and negatives to using either digital or analog means in expressing yourself. But what if that's not so?

Here's what I mean. A friend of mine in Chicago is a composer of electronic music. He uses a variety of means (live recordings, drum machines, synthesizers, etc.) to compose ambient music. But amid all his high tech hardware (and believe me, he has quite a set up) is a pre-digital, vacuum tube amp. He keeps it in the studio to push compositions or parts of compositions through to re-record; he contends that the vacuum tube amp affects the sounds produced, giving them a deeper, richer sound not found in music made in a purely digital way. It's his way to give his music a depth and soul that he feels would be lacking if he composed only using the computer.

Now I've heard such arguments before, usually from guitarists who swear that vacuum tube amplifiers are far superior to newer, solid-state equipment. The idea is that the imperfections or quirks of the older technology actually adds to the listening experience. And I went along with this assumption, for I believe that there is something different in being digital versus being analog, and that each "class" of technology had it's positives and negatives. But last night, I began teaching a new class on Digital imaging, and one of my students happens to be a musician who works only with analog equipment. But rather than give the standard reasons I've heard about the quality of the sounds created, he instead asserted that there was no real difference; all analog "qualities" could be reproduced in a digital environment, if one chose to do so. Rather, he remained analog because of personal tendencies. Furthermore, he felt that a musician/composer should stick only to one or the other "classes." In other words, he couldn't see a reason for incorporating analog equipment if you're a digital composer, and visa versa.

So what if he's right? Have digital tools (for music, art, film, etc.) become so sophisticated as to remove the need to have analog technologies lying around? Does that mean that folks that hold on to older technologies (from the painter who uses canvas to the musician who uses vacuum tools) simply do so from habit? Or fear of the new? Or a mistaken commitment to tradition? I personally hope not, but it would be foolhardy not to examine the possibility...