I get this. With anything from the core classical repertoire, the obvious major composers, to a good listener, you almost already know the piece before you lear

I get this. With anything from the core classical repertoire, the obvious major composers, to a good listener, you almost already know the piece before you learn it. With jazz standards too, but there is much more flexibility required in actually rendering them. Part of the article seems to be confirming a neurobiological basis for something quite common-sensical to me. From how you describe your issue I suspect there are things from the more recent classical repertoire that would stump you beyond the level of Bill Evans transcriptions. Bill Evans is still at least in a relatively "accessible/listenable" harmonic idiom. Have you tried reading through any atonal/serial works of the Second Viennese School? Or 20th century classical composers like Ligeti, Elliott Carter, or contemporary pieces like Unsuk Chin's piano etudes, or Birtwistle's "Clocks"? I'm a good sight reader too but that's where I really hit a wall. This is music that provokes a strong negative reaction in many people. In the language of the article, their sensory expectations are defied. I think to really love this music (as I really do), you will have had to grapple with and deeply internalize things about compositional structure, so that what is a theme, a countersubject, a commentary, a development, an ornamentation, a point of rhythmic or textural elaboration, etc. are all still readily evident to the ear, and thus satisfy the ear, even if it's all occuring in an alien harmonic context.