Peter Hook has firmly rejected reuniting with his former New Order and Joy Division bandmates at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony in November, citing sustained conflict and a drawn-out legal fight that he says resulted in substantial losses. The 70-year-old bassist, who founded both legendary British acts, made his views unmistakably evident when asked if he would share the stage with Bernard Sumner, Stephen Morris and Gillian Gilbert for the recognition. “No. No. Not after what they did to me and my family, no,” Hook told Rolling Stone, adding that principles matter more than the look of getting back together. Whilst Hook says he remains keen to attend the ceremony, his decision not to perform alongside his ex-bandmates promises to darken what should be a celebratory moment for two of Britain’s most impactful musical groups.
A Decade of Quiet and Judicial Struggle
The foundations of Hook’s antagonism run deep, extending to the aftermath of Ian Curtis’s passing in 1980. When the Joy Division vocalist ended his life, the other members eventually regrouped under the New Order name, with Hook serving as the group’s bassist throughout their most commercially successful era. However, the relationship commenced breaking down when Hook exited in 2007, thinking then that New Order had exhausted its potential. His leaving, he felt, would signal the definitive end of the outfit. Instead, his ex-colleagues harboured different intentions.
When Sumner, Morris and Gilbert reformed New Order in 2011 without consulting Hook, the bassist felt betrayed. The decision sparked a long-running and costly legal dispute over the band’s name and royalties — a conflict that Hook asserts cost him six years of his wages. Though the dispute was ultimately resolved in 2017, the psychological and monetary cost has created lasting wounds. Hook hasn’t spoken to Sumner or Gilbert in 15 years, and his communication with Morris has been limited to occasional contact over the past four or five years, leaving little room for reconciliation before November’s ceremony.
- Ian Curtis took his own life in 1980, leading to Joy Division’s dissolution
- Hook left New Order in 2007, believing the band had run its course
- The surviving members reformed without Hook in 2011, triggering court battles
- Settlement reached in 2017, but personal relationships remain fractured
The Introduction Nobody Anticipated to Heal
Despite his unwillingness to share the stage with his ex-band members, Hook has stated he will be present at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame ceremony in November. However, his presence will be a bittersweet affair, marked primarily by recognition of Joy Division and New Order’s historical significance than by any sense of familial warmth. The bass player has been clear that his presence is driven by factors entirely separate from his distant band members. “For many, many reasons … not one other member of the band is a reason,” he stated bluntly, highlighting precisely how divided the group has become despite their significant impact on post-punk and electronic music.
The admission, whilst a deserved honour to two bands that profoundly transformed British music, has become something of an awkward affair for all involved. What might ordinarily serve as an opportunity for reflection and reconciliation has instead become a stark reminder of unresolved grievances and the limits of nostalgia. Hook’s refusal to perform 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 pressed on the possibility of reconciliation, Hook presented a situation so full of sarcasm it was clear his true feelings. He envisioned Bernard Sumner approaching him with an apology: “Hey Hooky, sorry about that eight-year legal battle that set you back six years’ wages. I’m really sorry about it. We should maybe have just had a chat about it.” The bassist’s flat tone when describing this hypothetical encounter made evident that such an apology stays firmly in the realm of fantasy. Without genuine acknowledgement of the harm done and the monetary cost extracted, Hook appears reluctant to consider the prospect of reuniting.
Yet Hook hasn’t entirely closed the door on the possibility of eventual reconciliation, acknowledging that human nature is unpredictable and emotions can change unexpectedly. “So you never know, dear. Life is full of surprises. I’m sure that could be a lovely one,” he said with characteristic wryness. The bassist drew a compelling 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 initial decisive action toward reconciliation—something that seems unlikely before the autumn ceremony.
Conflicting Statements from Either Party
Whilst Peter Hook has been forthright and unambiguous about his rejection of involvement in any reunion, his former bandmates have maintained a notably different public stance. Bernard Sumner, Stephen Morris and Gillian Gilbert have mostly stayed quiet on the matter, avoiding confirmation or denial of their intentions for the induction ceremony in November. This imbalance in messaging has resulted in significant ambiguity about how the evening will develop, with Hook’s defiant stance contrasting sharply against the comparative silence coming from the three other band members. The missing coordinated statement from New Order indicates either a intentional approach of restraint or a underlying disagreement about how to manage the circumstances publicly.
The divergence in their public communications reflects the widening gulf that has developed between the parties since their split in 2007 and ensuing legal disputes. Hook’s readiness to discuss openly 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 quietness indicates an effort to maintain respect, sidestep more confrontation, or merely progress ahead without dwelling on past disputes stays uncertain. What is clear is that the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame entry will happen against a setting of irreconcilably different accounts about what took place and what ought to follow.
| 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 spectre of Oasis hangs over discussions of prospective rock comebacks, yet Hook’s position diverges notably from Liam and Noel Gallagher’s latest reunion. Whilst the Gallagher brothers finally returned to a working relationship after close to thirty years of bitterness, Hook looks far less willing toward such a settlement. The Oasis comeback showed that even the most fractious band relationships could be repaired, especially when economic incentives and audience sentiment converged. However, Hook’s principled stand suggests that money and nostalgia on their own cannot span the divide created by what he considers to be a fundamental betrayal at the time of the 2011 reformation.
Hook’s conditional language—suggesting reconciliation might occur solely should Sumner provided a heartfelt apology—points to a glimmer of possibility, though his sardonic tone suggests he harbours minimal real hope of such an gesture. The bass player has spent years processing the psychological and monetary consequences from the court battle, and that accumulated grievance 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 eventually acknowledged their shared legacy and mutual benefit, Hook seems determined 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 decision not to reunite
- The 2017 legal settlement settled financial matters but not emotional wounds
- True reconciliation would require extraordinary recognition from Sumner