Wow, that is one long thread, with quite a lot of different points of view. My approach to these issues (as indeed most issues) is pragmatic.
The issue I faced with the release I quoted is that there is no good way of including “credited as” information for composers when a non-classical style is used (i.e. composer not in track artist). There is no composer type for artist-recording relationship, so the only place to set the “credited as” data is in the artist-work relationship. However, that relationship will be common to any release containing the work and different releases might credit the composer differently. I also question whether it is appropriate to create a work entity purely to enable the entry of a composer relationship, especially where the “work” is an interpretation of a piece of traditional music.
So it seems to me that the only good way of documenting this release is to use the classical style, which arguably fits with @reosarevok 's inclusion of
as being classical.
In that thread it was also said that
but little evidence was given for that.
Arguably, we could use the track artist for both the main performing artist and the composer (if different). This style could be used for both classical and non-classical recordings. The role of each should be clear from the various relationships. Both can then have a “credited as” entry which reflects what is on the CD booklet or whatever. I admit I haven’t fully investigated the implications of this, but it seems to me that it would not invalidate existing data, just allow greater flexibility. Comments on this proposal?