"Analog" doesn't necessarily pertain to audio, although that's certainly how we're most used to seeing the word: "of or pertaining to a mechanism that represents data by measurement of a continuous physical variable, as voltage or pressure." That certainly describes how we practice non-digital photography. However, "analog" carries so many associations that compare it to digital means that I hate to use the word. It is as if the use of the word is always an afterthought after something has gone digital. Whether one uses the terms "traditional," "silver-based," or "film" photography depends on one's frame of reference. I myself prefer "silver-based" for what I do.
Worker 11811's comments above are certainly correct. I started earnestly as a photography only four years ago. Long story short, I was ready to go back to college full-time, learn photography, and get a BFA in photography. But for various reasons, I didn't, and decided to teach myself the craft. I was determined to give myself a good fundamental education so that at the end, I'd know as much as someone with a BFA in photography would know. So after a year of learning digital, I plunged headlong into film, but thinking I'd do a "semester" or a year and then be done with it and go back to digital. Needless to say, I got hooked and it is digital I don't use much anymore -- mostly for when I need real-time results or when I'm doing complex lighting, or just for convenience. Film, though, gives me the tactile, hands-on, "I did it myself," "I'm an artist" feel that digital doesn't. Film has taught me more about everything relating to photography that digital didn't. You can name any area of competency relating to photography (e.g., exposure, composition, lighting, self-criticism), and I could tell you how film has helped me. I still like digital for some things, but film has helped me what digital just simply can't do well.