We are on topic, in a sayeresque fashion, in much the same way as the Bach was.
Hi j_menz,
please note: for my small and slow brain it's often difficult to differ. So, it's good that Michael has made up, I think, another thread in which "For Sarah" can be discussed.
So why not here concentrating on the Bach-work given in the title, and perhaps ask ourselves the question, in which points one could say:
"Yes, ok, it's an arrangement which differs in many points from the original, but simultaneously the SOURCE is very well to recognize, still, and why shouldn't, in modern times, a "polarizing" version / interpretation / arrangement be shown?"
Or:
"No, nobody has got the right to do such work on a given original from 1375 ?"

We all know, that Bach's works sometimes are very very inviting to make interesting and exciting versions from them. For example the 1st prelude of the WTC I is such an example. It has been: Jazzed, religionized, octavated, played with crossed hands, played in many articulation- and agogic-related manners, has been played in minor, as well as in other major keys, and so on.
Bach offers so much: He's dead, and left us a huge heritage, but one thing he certainly won't ever say:
"My Music is a Dogma."
I hope, we're on the PRELUDE, now, again.
Cordially, 8_octaves.