Wouldn't it be fair to say that any artists labelled as "the best" will be overrated
even if they actually are the best?   
 
I mean, there are people who will argue that Dylan isn't the best singer/songwriter,
the Beatles were not the best band, the Stones were never the world's greatest band, 
the Who weren't the best live band, Elvis wasn't the best rock and roll singer, Joni 
Mitchell wasn't the best female singer/songwriter, Miles Davis and John Coltrane not 
the best jazz artists, Sinatra not the best singer, etc...
 
Any list of "most overrated" will by necessity be a list of the most acclaimed or
most popular.
 
I think the easiest artist for me to list is Oasis, because I can explain very clearly
why they are overrated.  I don't need to mention that the sneering vocals annoy
me, because that's subjective criticism, but objectively I say this, based mostly
on their first two albums, because those are the ones still listed among the best
ever by critics who should know better:
 
The songs are simple, repetitive, overlong, and arranged blandly.   Almost every 
song would be improved by removing 20-50% of it.  And the lyrics, while not
bad or inconsequential, are nothing especially memorable (and occasionally
suffer from the usual rock star decadence pose that is so tired that it has
no use any more.)
 
To compare them to the Beatles, since so many have, just look at the chord
progressions---the songs are basic and do not go in unexpected directions.
They don't have hooks that pop up inside a song (or that change during a song.)
They also fall into the trap of repeating rather than expanding...these songs
just plain aren't challenging, and if you're going to write unchallenging pop
songs, they need to cut off at 2:30 or so...but even that would make them
a lesser band.  There is nothing they've ever done that has the harmonic complexity
or brilliant song structure of, say, "She Loves You."   And when the Beatles finally
did bring repetition into their songs (i.e. "I Want You (She's So Heavy)"), it was
done with purpose, in a song that was quite complicated, and in the context of other 
songs that were compact.
 
What Oasis had was energy and some really good melodies.   They did not have
the ability (or, should I say ambition?) to turn those into truly interesting songs
that have staying power.
 
Can anyone contradict me in a reasoned way, something beyond "but the
songs are great?"
 
 
 
 
_________________________________________________________________
Put your friends on the big screen with Windows Vista® + Windows Live™.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/shop/specialoffers.mspx?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_CPC_MediaCtr_bigscreen_102007