Mistake in Prokofiev sonata 8 urtext edition? (bar 144)

[paxxx17]

In the Atovmyan edition (marked as urtext on IMSLP) I've noticed that the second note in the right hand of bar 144 (F, see attachment) is written as natural, but it is played as F# in most (if not all) of the recordings I've listened to. F natural certainly doesn't sound right (it would even make sense for it to be F double-sharp).

Does anyone know what the intended note is here?

If this is the error in the Atovmyan edition, are there any others you've found?

[klavieronin]

I feel like if it was mean to be natural it would have a natural sign on it. I would play it as F#.

[frodo3]

You appear to have the exact same version (Atovmyan edition) shown on youtube for performances by Ashkenazy and Boris Berman.  I do not think there is any misprint here.

Notice that 2 measures earlier when G-sharp is played in left hand and G-natural is played in right hand at the same time, the right hand has the natural sign.  In your measure, the left hand is playing an F-sharp at the same time as the F is being played in the right hand. I believe that Prokofiev would have marked the right hand with a natural sign if he wanted F-natural here (like he marked G-natural 2 measures earlier).

All just IMO.

[frodo3]

I decided to take another quick look at this.  The Richter recording shown below looks very much to also be URTEXT except this is from a different publisher.  You can easily tell by looking carefully.  For example, at the beginning of 1 measure after your measure 144, the low A in the RH is an acciaccatura with slur that goes upward in the Richter.  In the Ashkenazy and Berman, the slur is parallel to the staff.  Anyway – I’m thinking both are URTEXT from different publishers. 

Now to your measure 144 (I assume your counting is correct as the measures are not numbered).  They are notated exactly the same in both URTEXT editions and in yours.  The 1st RH F has neither a sharp or a natural.  So, this is not a typo I believe.  Although it would be most clear to have a sharp here, in my opinion Prokofiev intends it to be played as F# for the reason I mention in my prior post.

See minute marker about 7:30 in attached link for Richter version of score that appears to me to be URTEXT also.

Happy new year!   

[paxxx17]

I really want to kill myself with this score... So much inconsistencies that are driving me crazy

For example in the Richter video that frodo3 provided: around 27:00 (the last measure in the video frame) there's a C which should obviously be a C#

Also, check out 21:37, the measure with repeated notes in the right hand. Last three notes in the left hand are: A D F.
Analogous section later in the piece: 28:37, last three notes in the left hand (in the appropriate measure) are  D F Bb.
This inconsistency makes no sense, it should either be ADF+DGBb or ACF+DFBb. Both choices make sense and I don't know what to do

[kosulin]

I would also expect it be played as F#.

Muzgiz editions are pretty much the only legitimate editions of Prokofiev, so it is Urtext de facto. However, while most likely the publication was engraved from manuscripts provided by Prokofiev to the Russian National Library, there is a chance that some variations can be found later in some private collections (Gilels archive estate in Moscow, etc.).

If you want to know how it is to be played - listen for Gilels recordings. He was asked by Prokofiev to be its first public performer.
Gilels played this sonata in 1944 from manuscript before it was published. IMHO his interpretation can be considered as close to Prokofiev's intent as possible.

Citing Gilels: "I studied the sonata from the manuscript, and at that time I frequently visited S. S. at home... I played for him the work I had just learned very tentatively. S. S., while checking certain passages, made corrections in the score. Sometimes he would sit at the keyboard and, without playing any note, indicate what he would like to hear from the performer above all."

[flyusx]

Muzgiz editions are pretty much the only legitimate editions of Prokofiev, so it is Urtext de facto.

Muzgiz is now Compozitor SpB (https://compozitor.spb.ru/eng/eng-about_us.php), correct?

[kosulin]

Muzgiz is now Compozitor SpB (https://compozitor.spb.ru/eng/eng-about_us.php), correct?

No, Muzgiz and Soviet Compositor  were separate publishing houses with separate founders. They were combined into newly created Muzyka in 1964, but in 1967 Soviet Compositor was branched off as independent house again.
Muzyka still functions under this name, and is considered Muzgiz successor.
Soviet Compositor became defunct in 1992 after the USSR collapse, and the newly created Compozitor became its successor.