The word “nocturne” was first used to describe a piano work by the Irish composer John Field, who also established its basic framework. The genre was expanded and brought to its maturity by Chopin, who wrote twenty-one nocturnes for solo piano over his entire creative life. Among Chopin’s works, it is the nocturnes with their lyrical melodies and improvisational nature that especially provide flexibility and freedom for performers to express inner feelings and individual interpretations. The marked contrast between Chopin’s early and late nocturnes naturally leads to different interpretive results. Accordingly, this project investigates how the stylistic changes in Chopin’s early and late nocturnes are related to their performances. Taking Op. 9, No. 1 and Op. 62, No. 1 as examples of Chopin’s early and late nocturnes respectively, the project compares the recordings of Artur Rubinstein (1965) and Vladimir Ashkenazy (1981) through the lens of descriptive analyses. The introductory chapter covers the influences on Chopin’s nocturnes, Rubinstein’s and Ashkenazy’s playing styles of Chopin’s works, various editions of Chopin’s nocturnes, and the relation of analysis to performance. The main body of the paper alternates descriptive analysis of each section of Nocturnes Op. 9, No. 1 and Op. 62, No. 1 with comparisons between the two pianists’ recordings. The final chapter outlines how the two nocturnes from Chopin’s early and late creative periods differ from one another and how the changes in style affect the two pianists’ interpretations. The goal of this project is to aid in a better understanding of the interpretive choices made by Rubinstein and Ashkenazy in these two nocturnes.