Great thread. I'm wrestling with a similar problem, except that I DO have a computer, but I really don't like the vagueness of the descriptions of how it is used in the recording/mixdown process.
Like the OP, I'm looking for simplicity. I've found, however, that the simplicity creates some pretty complicated problems themselves. Two channels in plus external mikes would create more problems in terms of controlling the sound.
I have working studio experience. I understand analog. I understand mixing channels. I've owned 2 and 4 channel flanged tape machines, and I own a Portastudio 414 mkII.
I have a jazz quartet (piano, acoustic bass, saxophone, drums and occasional singer). As much as I dislike the idea of adding yet another component to the recording process, I think it's a necessary evil (sorry) at this point. I've settled upon the zoom R-16 tethered to a laptop with a good program. Does this sound like a sensible approach? I think that this would be (in the long run) a sensible approach for me as well as the OP. In time, he'll want to improve the quality of his recording and want a LOT more versatility.
What I don't understand is why most of these incredibly competent and complex digital machines don't have individual VU meters on the interface. Is it the manufacturers' attempt to keep costs down? I can see why these interfaces are designed to work with a computer; so much of the sophisticated electronics already exists on the computer. All that's needed is an appropriate program.
I apologize if I have hijacked the thread, but I think it relates to the OP's dilemma.