(Been on vacation, hence no response from me for a while)
The style guidelines for recording artist simply say ‘The artist should usually be the same as the first release of the recording.’, i.e it s the same as the track artist for this recording on one release (nominally the first). And the track artist is the artist credited for the track on the release. Nowhere does it say that the track artist must be resposible for the actual recording of the track or that the composer must be alive when it was recorded , nor does it say the recording artist shod be treated differently to the track artist
So I don’t really see how you can say the CSG is consistent with non-classical
There are many instances when the composer is used as the recording artist field such as singer songwriters who write their own songs, the difference is that they are also the performer of the song as well, but they are still the composer.
Or consider modern classical composers, they typically often also perform the conductor role . But from the CSG if a modern and living composer also conducts the piece they write they would be in the both recording artist credit and track artist credit, but if they only composed but did not conduct they would only be in the track artist credit field.
And when you follow all those steps in the style guidelines, for non-classical you wind up with a recording artist of the person/people considered responsible for that recording. And when you follow the steps in the CSG, you wind up a recording artist of the person/people considered responsible for the recording.
Something along the lines of the musicians credited with creating a particular recording would seem to be a reasonable definition of the field, as we use it, and both style guides get you there (possibly with some exceptions, of course).
The official docs define it as “the artist(s) that the recording is primarily credited to” which again seems consistent with what we’re doing. (Note it says recording, not composition or work as well call them).
PS: I’m pretty sure Hawk’s comment you replied to has an implied “where the composer wasn’t also a performer”.
You may end up with a recording artist with the people responsible for the recording, but that is not what the standard style guidelines are saying. The style guidelines clearly treat the recording artist the same as the track artist for none classical, but for classical the two fields represent different things - this inconsistency is very problematic.
I don’t see the logic of saying we should not put the composer in the recording artist field because they werent involved in the recording, but its correct to put them in the track artist field and put nothing else in, and then have the situation where the relationship between track and recording artists is completely different for CSG to non CSG releases.
I think that the problem is that many artists contribute to an CD:
The release artist, ie the person who thinks it is their CD (and probably paid for it)
the recording artists who played on the recording
the track artists who are credited on the CD cover
the composer, ie. Beethoven
the arranger, who took the composer’s original work, and added new scores, perhaps for new instruments, or created a new style.
The artists credited on the CD cover is sometimes the performance artist(s), sometimes the composer, and sometimes someone else. So if I want to bring out a CD of great conductors, then conductors are probably credited on each track.
I think we can be consistent by designating the Tracks with the artists credited on the CD cover. We already have the release artist, and the recording artists, and relationships can specify everyone else.