The comparisons are steeped in beef and tradition (both being NYC MCs from the same era, who have been considered to be the best by different people at different times), but don't hold much water when you look at their recent output.

In terms of rapping, they're damn near opposites. Nas is the quintessential writer; dotting verses with extreme visual detail and personal exposure, sometimes at the expense of staying on beat. Jay-Z on the other hand, is known for not writing at all. His rhymes rely more on memorable one-liners, slick catchphrases, and an uncanny harmony with the track. He's cool, wealthy, and winning above all else, and rarely reveals much in the way of depth or beyond-the-surface personality. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, depending on one's personal taste.

Musically, Nas is famous for seemingly not giving a shit about what he raps over, much to his albums' and legacy's detriment. He's tried his hand at making contemporary hits here and there, enough to prove that's not his lane. When coupled with focused executive production (MC Serch, Trackmasters, Salaam Remi & No ID, whoever the fuck at Columbia compiled 'The Lost Tapes'), he can churn out classics head and shoulders above everything else in the rap marketplace. When left to his own devices, he produces albums that are universally disappointing, but showing just enough flashes of brillance to keep people anticipating a full-length release worthy of his still-potent talents.

Jay-Z, by comparison, lives and dies by the hit. Not to say he doesn't have deep album cuts, but his career is mainly defined by keeping up with trends and making catchy records that will please radio and a wide range of fans. He's relentlessly dependable, at the risk of being boringly predictable.

I haven't yet spent enough time with 'Magna Carta Holy Grail' to form a fully-baked opinion, but after my first few listens, I'd say it's essentially just another Jay-Z album. It has some legitimate head nodders ("Picasso Baby", "FUTW", "Somewhere in America", "Heaven"), mainstream-ready tracks ("BBC, "Part II"), some snoozers ("Holy Grail", "Tom Ford", "FuckWithMeYouKnowIGotIt", "La Familia"), and a surprisingly revealing moment ("Jay-Z Blue"). The production sounds expensive and current enough, and the raps are typical Jay-Z fare. There's little new ground covered, but it's mostly satisfying enough.

Meanwhile, 'Life is Good' is proof that when steered in the right direction, Nas is in a different class entirely. He raps with an intensity of several bygone eras (although I'd argue the same goes for Black Thought), and uses tracks that rely on updating classic-style breakbeats with modern flourishes. Even his supposed radio tracks ("Nasty", "The Don", "Daughters") sound nothing like those of his peers. Yes, I'm pretending "Summer on Smash" doesn't exist. He somehow managed to produce an album that avoids most of his bad habits (undeserved martyrdom, tired paranoia, strange and/or half-baked concepts, mediocre beats), and instead puts his strengths (unmatched attention to detail, revealing introspection, rich storytelling, wide topic range) on full display.

When comparing the two albums, you're comparing a triumphant record to one that's "not bad". And when comparing Nas vs. Jay-Z, you're comparing artists who started similarly, but now have very different methods and aims for their music.



_______________________________
gamblers and masturbators.

http://urkelmoedee.com
http://urkelmoedee.tumblr.com
http://twitter.com/urkelmoedee

PSN: UrkelMoeDee