This is the same text as 577 except that one has an extra half-verse at the end.

Is it a different melody at least?

Not...really? Like it's a little more structured meter-wise but the pitches are the same.

The harmony is new though?

Yeah, back in the first millennium four-part harmony hadn't been invented yet. Or something.

Skipped this last time! Might have done this earlier (also might not have), but I was stuck out of town...maybe more on my main blog someday. Or maybe not, I'm vague like that.

Is this the same text as #587?

Yes. Still very good!

Is the melody as good?

I'm gonna say not. 587's intro is cool, this feels a little more standard. This one is in a better key for most instruments to play, so there is that. They're both about the same vocal range, neither should be too difficult.

What about the accompaniment parts?

Neither of them have accompaniment in the standard pew edition, so it's a tie!

Didn't we just do this one?

Yes, but Lutherans really like it.

Same text? Same pitches?

Basically, yeah.

Then why twice?

Oh we're just getting started.

But. Why.

So, the previous arrangement was just melody. This has harmonization too.

They couldn't have combined it into one like they do for all the other harmonizations?

Not in this case. See, this one is in 4/4 with even measures. The previous one doesn't really have measures, the durations of the notes are just kinda "whatever" and it's more dance like.

So do they have different hymn tune names?

No, the hymn tune is "Ein feste burg" (which is just the German for "A Mighty Fortress") in both cases.

Then how do you tell them apart?

In the hymn tune index (yes, of course there is one), the previous version is "Ein feste burg (rhythmic)" and this one is "Ein feste burg (isometric)."

Isn't an isometry also a sort of function in mathematical analysis that preserves--

Yes, yes, that's something else though.