Regardless of the results, I am still amazed that the great man's skull was apparently within the gift of a museum, to hand out for this sort of exercise.   I suppose that it's double standards to say that it's all right to reconstruct a face from a skull when the skull's owner is unknown, or when the owner's identity is merely suspected, but not all right when the owner is rightly renowned, but I think that the passage of time is all-important.   There may be thousands of people alive today who are descended from the occupant of a Saxon grave from the time of King Aethelstan, but it's a safe bet that they won't know about it, so won't be bothered when that Saxon is turned into a lab report.   There must, surely, though, be living people who can claim J.S.Bach as a direct ancestor.  All those children and no descendants?

Archaeology is always going to be largely about burials.   Get used to the idea, if you are planning to get buried.   On the other hand, if you are an archaeologist reading this in the year 3008, check out the names "Brookwood" and "Kensal Green".   They should keep you busy.