Peter Hook has definitively dismissed reuniting with his former New Order and Joy Division bandmates at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony this November, citing prolonged discord and a protracted legal battle that he says resulted in substantial losses. The 70-year-old bassist, who founded both legendary British acts, made his stance abundantly plain when asked if he would share the stage with Bernard Sumner, Stephen Morris and Gillian Gilbert for the honour. “No. No. Not after what they did to me and my family, no,” Hook told Rolling Stone, adding that principles matter more than the appearance of reuniting. Whilst Hook says he is still eager to attend the ceremony, his refusal to perform alongside his ex-bandmates promises to cast a shadow over what should be a celebratory moment for two of the UK’s most significant bands.
Ten Years of Quietude and Court Battles
The origins of Hook’s antagonism stretch far, rooted in the wake of Ian Curtis’s passing in 1980. When the Joy Division vocalist ended his life, the other members subsequently reunited under the New Order name, with Hook functioning as the band’s bass player throughout their most lucrative years. However, the dynamic commenced breaking down when Hook left in 2007, convinced that New Order was spent. His leaving, he felt, would mark the final conclusion of the band. Instead, his ex-colleagues harboured different intentions.
When Sumner, Morris and Gilbert revived New Order in 2011 without consulting Hook, the bassist felt betrayed. The move set off a long-running and costly court battle over financial rights and band ownership — a dispute that Hook asserts took up the equivalent of six years of his wages. Though the dispute was ultimately resolved in 2017, the emotional and financial impact has resulted in enduring damage. Hook has not communicated with Sumner or Gilbert in 15 years, and his contact with Morris has been confined to infrequent exchanges over the preceding four or five years, leaving little room for reconciliation before November’s ceremony.
- Ian Curtis died by suicide in 1980, resulting in Joy Division’s dissolution
- Hook departed from New Order in 2007, convinced the band had run its course
- The surviving members reunited without Hook in 2011, sparking legal disputes
- Agreement achieved in 2017, but interpersonal bonds stay broken
The Initiation Nobody Anticipated to Mend
Despite his refusal to participate the stage with his ex-band members, Hook has confirmed he will attend the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame ceremony in November. However, his presence will be a mixed experience, marked primarily by recognition of the historical importance of Joy Division and New Order than by any sense of familial warmth. The bass player has been clear that his attendance is motivated by factors entirely separate from his estranged colleagues. “For many, many reasons … not one other member of the band is a reason,” he stated bluntly, underscoring just how fractured the group has become despite their significant impact on post-punk and electronic genres.
The admission, whilst a fitting tribute to two bands that profoundly transformed British music, has become something of an awkward affair for all involved. What might ordinarily serve as an chance for contemplation and reconciliation has instead become a sobering testament of unresolved grievances and the limits of nostalgia. Hook’s decision not to participate has already cast a shadow over the proceedings, transforming what should be a victorious occasion into a public acknowledgement of internal discord. The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, typically a venue for uplifting occasions and unexpected reunions, will instead bear witness to one of rock music’s most painful and enduring rifts.
Hook’s Terms for Resolution
When asked about the possibility of reconciliation, Hook presented a situation so full of sarcasm it was impossible to miss his genuine sentiment. He envisioned Bernard Sumner approaching him with an apology: “Hey Hooky, sorry about that eight-year legal battle that cost you six years’ wages. I’m really sorry about it. We should maybe have just had a conversation about it.” The musician’s deadpan delivery when outlining this hypothetical encounter made evident that such an apology stays squarely within the domain of fantasy. Without genuine acknowledgement of the harm done and the financial toll imposed, Hook seems reluctant to entertain thoughts of reuniting.
Yet Hook hasn’t completely closed the door on the possibility of future peace, acknowledging that human nature is unpredictable and feelings can change unexpectedly. “So you can’t say for certain, dear. Life is full of surprises. I’m sure that could be a wonderful one,” he said with typical wryness. The bassist made a relatable parallel, suggesting that even those we believe we could not pardon might surprise us with a act of sincere remorse. However, the responsibility, he made clear, rests squarely on his ex-bandmates to take the first meaningful step toward rapprochement—something that seems unlikely before the autumn ceremony.
Conflicting Statements from Both Sides
Whilst Peter Hook has been direct and explicit about his unwillingness to take part in any reunion event, his previous musical partners have adopted a distinctly contrasting public position. Bernard Sumner, Stephen Morris and Gillian Gilbert have mostly stayed quiet on the subject, avoiding confirmation or denial of their intentions for the November induction event. This asymmetry in communication has left considerable ambiguity about how the evening will take shape, with Hook’s uncompromising stand standing in stark contrast to the subdued tone originating from the remaining three members. The absence of a coordinated response from New Order points to either a calculated strategy of restraint or a fundamental disagreement about how to address the situation publicly.
The distinction in their public messaging reflects the broader chasm that has opened between the parties since their 2007 split and ensuing legal disputes. Hook’s willingness to speak candidly about his grievances stands in marked contrast to what appears to be a tendency from his past associates to move past the issue. Whether this quiet reflects an effort to maintain respect, avoid further conflict, or simply move forward without rehashing old grievances is uncertain. What is evident is that the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame admission will take place against a backdrop of irreconcilably different accounts about what happened and what should happen next.
| Party | Public Position |
|---|---|
| Peter Hook | Definitively refusing to perform or reunite with bandmates; openly discussing the legal battle and emotional toll; leaving reconciliation only possible if former members apologise sincerely |
| Bernard Sumner, Stephen Morris and Gillian Gilbert | Largely silent on reunion plans; no public statements confirming or denying participation in the ceremony; maintaining apparent restraint regarding past disputes |
| Rock & Roll Hall of Fame | Proceeding with induction of both Joy Division and New Order despite internal tensions; providing venue for honouring both acts regardless of personal conflicts between members |
The Oasis Precedent and Fading Hope
The specter of Oasis dominates discussions of prospective rock comebacks, yet Hook’s circumstances differ significantly from Liam and Noel Gallagher’s recent rapprochement. Whilst the Gallagher brothers finally returned to a collaborative arrangement after close to thirty years of acrimony, Hook looks far less willing toward such an outcome. The Oasis reunion demonstrated that even the most strained band relationships could be mended, notably when economic incentives and public opinion aligned. However, Hook’s principled stand indicates that monetary considerations and nostalgia alone cannot bridge the rift created by what he regards as a essential betrayal in the 2011 reformation.
Hook’s conditional language—implying a reunion could happen only if Sumner provided a heartfelt apology—points to a glimmer of possibility, though his sardonic tone suggests he harbours minimal real hope of such an overture. The bassist has spent years working through the emotional and financial fallout from the court battle, and that built-up resentment appears to have calcified into something less susceptible to the type of financial incentives that might otherwise compel a reconciliation. Unlike Oasis, where both parties ultimately recognised their common heritage and mutual benefit, Hook appears resolved to safeguard his principles more than anything, even if it means forgoing a possibly glorious occasion at one of the most esteemed events in rock music.
- Hook emphasises morality over commercial opportunity in his refusal to reunite
- The 2017 financial settlement resolved financial matters but not emotional damage
- Authentic reconciliation would demand unprecedented acknowledgement from Sumner