system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Self-titled albums are unimaginative, boring and are detrimental to the album as a whole

I listen to quite a lot of music and I've always felt that the name of the song or the album can add a lot to the story that the record is trying to tell.  

I've always appreciated the naming by Artic Monkeys for example , such as with their album 'Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not'. I think it adds character to the record and allows the listener to be more invested in it from the off. When I see self\-titled albums, I find it lazy at best and at worse I find it detracts from the album as a whole.

If you have any examples where you think I might be wrong, please let me know. I can't seem to get over this bias myself.
gpt
Sometimes self titling an album is an artistic and creative choice that is central to the theme of the album! I’ll give you an example:

Most of us have heard of the Beatles “White Album”, however, that name is just a nickname based on the album cover which is completely white with just the band name written on it. The actual name of that album is “The Beatles”.

This is because the Beatles wanted a stark contrast to their previous records like “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” and “Magical Mystery Tour” which both had fun interesting names,wildly colorful album art, and psychedelic sounding music. 

The White Album, however, features a much more stripped back sound than those aforementioned records and is more similar to their earlier sound. So, to fit the mood of the album being much more scaled down compared to “Pepper”, “Magical Mystery Tour”, “Yellow Submarine”, and “Revolver”, they chose to have a plain album sleeve and a plain album title to signal that they were going back to a more mature version of their earlier Beatles sound and would be stepping away from the psychedelic scene.