Speaking of music....
I'm a great lover of piano transcriptions of orchestral works (and vice versa). The best transcriptions tend to have one thing in common: they recreate the original, and entirely in terms of the new medium. Sometimes one hears a passage that seems to completely encapsulate the spirit of the original, but often the notes aren't the same, e.g. different musical lines appearing at different pitches; chords replaced with arpeggios; however, it works because the overall effect highlights what the listener thought they heard in the original.
For all the limitations of the human hand, a piano can better capture music originally written for a full orchestra than a film can capture a book. Books and films are completely different, particularly where the resources of each are used to the full: striking images** in film; capturing the soul of a character in books. (Rather than a piano "capturing" an orchestra, think of a piano "capturing" a painting.)
This is why, as has been said above, strict one-to-one adaptations (i.e. with no deviations from the original source) rarely work. Just one example: film is linear and individual scenes almost always move through time at normal speed. (Slow motion and speeded-up motion call attention to themselves in film). In a book one can play with the speed that time passes; and if one is skilled at this, the reader may not consciously notice that one or two seconds have been spread across two or more paragraphs.
** - I know it's often said that the special effects in books (or on the radio) are better than what cgi can produce, but that's not really the point, which is that an original striking image is hard to beat, and impossible to capture in words.
