Time for a new acronym: YAOA.

I'll buy one, of course.

I've been trying to figure it out, and no doubt I'll feel like an idiot for not getting it when I find out what it stands for, but I gotta ask- What's YAOA stand for?
I did come up with some myself:
Washed up band tries to resuscitate career with lame orchestral arrangements. (WUBTTRCWLOA)
Band records new arrangements of old songs because it's easier than writing new ones and no one cares about anything but the old hits anyway (BRNAOOSBIETWNOANOCAABTOHA)
Jumpin' on the orchestral bandwagon (JOTOB)
Cynical product (CP)

Yet Another Orchestral Album

Question for me is whether the vocals are new or vintage vocal tracks repurposed like the Elvis orchestral albums. My suspicion is the latter.

I like them all. I'll be interested in any of this when a symphony orchestra decides to put it music to a two guitar, bass, drums and piano arrangement.

I have a feeling that this will be old vocals.

'

Better said would be"original" vocals. It should be an interesting experiment.

We now have the cover image, description and tracklist to the first post. Here's some background information about this project:

Listen to the surprisingly delightful results:

I don't hate it

Guess they couldn't do a better job of airbrushing Brian Wilson into the cover photo.

No, it isn't really terrible, but I do think it could be improved if there were only a way to strip away all of that orchestral stuff. I sense that this could be a really killer track with just the standard rock 'n' roll instrumentation.

No, it isn't really terrible, but I do think it could be improved if there were only a way to strip away all of that orchestral stuff. I sense that this could be a really killer track with just the standard rock 'n' roll instrumentation. [/quote]
Like the Beatles did? So, "Beach Boys: Naked"?

Try this one:

Bought my first Beach Boys album when I was 13 (Surfin' Safari in 1962). Lifelong fan, particularly of all things Brian Wilson, after that. This whole thing looks like something cooked up by that lifelong "hanger-on" Mike Love, who as FZ once said, "Is only in it for the money."
This album is much like Mike Love's life....there's no point to it!!! No thanks!!!!!!!

It's only fair that Mike Love tells us his side of things:

I'm a fan of Pet Sounds & the Smile Sessions not so much the rest.
To my ears Brian Wilson produced these original songs so well & with a lot of musical detail already it doesn't need any further orchestration whatsoever and makes the songs seem overblown and corny.
The only time I can remember a string section add colour to a rock performance is Gregg Allman In Concert 1974 or Yes - Magnification (2001)

Gosh I dislike Good Vibrations even more than Fun Fun Fun. I'm willing to wait for it to be released and listen to it before I decide to make it my own, but that's doubtful. I'm with banzaibid. What's the point? This is like one of those Stu Phillips albums of Beatles music that they put out in the sixties so that we could get our folks to like them. The folks, sadly, are long gone. I think if they just stripped the vocals and used them with orchestral tracks it might be somewhat more acceptable as something new. But by using what appears to be the full finished tracks and just adding these orchestral fills, they're just putting an additional unnecessary coat of paint on something that already looked pretty good as it was originally created fifty years ago.

I'm in if I can find a promo or used at my indie. That's the completist in me speaking.

David suggests a good analogy. It's as if someone had decided to 'enhance' the Mona Lisa by adding paint in a few areas where Leonardo had omitted it.

The Beach Boys have put together a growing playlist of promo videos for the album. It includes the previously seen trailer and Mike Love interview, and so far has additional commentary from Al Jardine and Bruce Johnston: