the original has life of it's own, the transcription is like a virus borrowing the DNA of the host's cells in order to survive
Spoken like a true MD
but then there's the Brahms LH version of the Chaconne and some of the Liszt transcriptions that have greater life (and merit?) than the orginal and we're back to square one
Good point, also the Rachmaninoff transcriptions, for instance, of the Kreisler Liebesfreud/Liebesleid, which IMO are metamorphoses that are greater than the original. But I was speaking merely of the convention (what usually seems to be done, whether I agree with it or not). There's also the case for this site of transcriptions of non-keyboard works by composers who didn't write anything for the keyboard (for instance, the Vivaldi-Bach keyboard concertos) of which I play one on the site), and the Wagner-Liszt transcriptions, the former having written very few piano
pieces and none of them great. That throws a bit of a wrench into the idea of linking to both composers. I think it makes sense to go with transcriber just for convenience
, since it seems to cover all of these possible cases. The transcriber is, after all, the one who put the actual ink to paper and made the decision to imitate the work at all, regardless of how good that imitation is and how great the transcriber is.