I find many classic albums overrated to varying degrees (like The Wall, London Calling, The Bends, Nevermind, etc), but one of the few that I outright actively dislike and don't see much of a silver lining in is My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy by Kanye West. I've never bought into the narrative that "he may be an ***-hole, but he makes undeniably great music!" in general. Most of his stuff sounds bad to my ears, and I don't like his sensibilities at all.
I also don't care for Paul McCartney's solo/Wings career, including Band on the Run or Ram (especially the way it was regularly treated as being equal to Lennon/Harrison's solo career-- None of McCartney's output comes remotely close to Plastic Ono Band or All Things Must Pass, IMO) or The Ramones (there's some basic appeal, but it doesn't get past the superficial surface level for me-- they're like catchy, throwaway jingles to me that I never go back to, and are actually the furthest thing from what I love about that punk aesthetic).
The Wall is a weird one for me in that I like a lot of the way certain chunks of it sounds and the construction overall (it's at least a good album), but can't shake the impression of Roger Waters feeling himself, stroking his own ego, and pretentiously thinking that he's being such a brilliant genius throughout the album. Very melodramatic, inorganic, whine-y, obnoxious, and heavy-handed, IMO, even though it has a great sound and some great tracks that anchor it down. I'm not sure how to describe it, but it's like... the opposite of feeling effortless-- you can kind of inherently feel a desperate, try-hard, overly ambitious perfectionism to it that was more off-putting than awe-inspiring for me. Oddly enough, I didn't have that issue with Animals at all and think that's a nearly flawless album.
Another weird one is Forever Changes by Love, which is a very solid, in some ways beautiful, impressive, dynamic, and cohesive album that I do generally kind of like and admire, but the flowery awkward nonsense lyrics combined with the tortured-poet delivery bug the **** out of me (kind of in a MacArthur Park kind of way).
I also feel like there are tons of accessible, mid-level gateway alternative albums/bands from the 90s/2000s that college-aged males understandably eat up but that I don't think should be elevated to where they are, such as Nirvana, Arcade Fire, Muse, Interpol, Wilco, The Strokes, Smashing Pumpkins, Oasis, Nine Inch Nails, Modest Mouse, early Brit-pop Radiohead etc, likely because there's a shortage of accessible bands from those eras that actually deserve that level of praise (there's an obvious general thirst for it that would cause a lot of things to become overrated, IMO-- everyone wants to find their own generation's version of The Beatles, whether it actually exists or not) and they happen to be really easy to get into. I understand why people like them (I was obsessed with some of them when I was younger too), but that feeling hasn't held up for me over time at all.
I don't know if that impression comes from bias as a result of having grown up with them and buying into the hype too hard, but these types of bands are actually an example of how I don't get the concept of nostalgia-- it seems to have the opposite effect on me. For example, I used to think Turn on the Bright Lights was a masterpiece in college, but then the moment I sunk my teeth into Unknown Pleasures, I was immediately like "Oh my god... that other album that I've been fawning all over is actually really lame!" In general, any sentimental value that I can associate with something being an important part of my development tends to be completely superseded by a slightly embarrassed, "what the hell was I thinking?" feeling. I'm harder on them, if anything.
If we're nitpicking the all time greats, there are also a number of prototypical male-targeting, relatively normal, accessible, consistent, and easy-to-understand-why-they're-great bands such as The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, and The Who that admittedly are great, but that I think don't quite deserve to be elevated to that Mt. Rushmore-esque Dylan/Beatles status as they so often are. I feel like less accessible/popular artists such as The Velvet Underground, Brian Eno, Joy Division, Can, and Captain Beefheart are more deserving of being placed alongside that company instead, at least when it comes to how good and rewarding and interesting they actually are (I see the argument for Pink Floyd/Jimi Hendrix as well, but they'd be in the next tier after that for me, personally). The Stones, Zeppelin, and The Who are way way down that list for me, and their supposed masterpiece albums have never felt like masterpieces to me (especially The Who's studio albums, which to me, are far beneath their live performance capabilities and talent level, and rock operas are generally a cheesy idea, in my opinion).