Peter Hook has definitively dismissed reuniting with his ex-bandmates from New Order and Joy Division at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony this November, citing years of acrimony and a drawn-out legal fight that he says caused him significant harm. The septuagenarian bass player, who established both iconic British bands, made his stance abundantly plain when asked if he would take 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 ethics count more than the appearance of reuniting. Whilst Hook says he is still eager to attend the ceremony, his refusal to perform alongside his former colleagues promises to darken what should be a triumphant occasion for two of Britain’s most influential musical acts.
A Decade of Quietude and Court Battles
The foundations of Hook’s resentment stretch far, rooted in the period following of Ian Curtis’s death in 1980. When the Joy Division vocalist ended his life, the surviving band members subsequently reunited under the New Order banner, with Hook functioning as the band’s bassist throughout their most lucrative era. However, the relationship commenced breaking down when Hook left in 2007, thinking then that New Order had exhausted its potential. His leaving, he felt, would signal the final conclusion of the outfit. Instead, his ex-colleagues possessed alternative ideas.
When Sumner, Morris and Gilbert reformed New Order in 2011 without seeking input from Hook, the bassist felt let down. The move sparked a lengthy and costly court battle over the band’s name and royalties — a battle that Hook asserts took up the equivalent of six years of his wages. Though the dispute was finally concluded in 2017, the psychological and monetary cost has left scars that remain unhealed. Hook has not communicated with Sumner or Gilbert in 15 years, and his interactions with Morris has been restricted to sporadic communication over the preceding 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 departed from New Order in 2007, believing the band had run its course
- Remaining members reformed without Hook in 2011, triggering legal disputes
- Settlement reached in 2017, but personal relationships remain fractured
The Induction Nobody Expected to Mend
Despite his unwillingness to share the stage with his former bandmates, Hook has confirmed he will attend the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame ceremony in November. However, his attendance will prove a bittersweet affair, marked more by acknowledgement of Joy Division and New Order’s historical significance than by any sense of genuine connection. The bassist has been emphatic 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 monumental influence on post-punk and electronic music.
The induction, whilst a fitting tribute to two bands that fundamentally reshaped 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 refusal to perform has already cast a shadow over the proceedings, transforming what should be a triumphant celebration 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 Requirements for Rapprochement
When pressed on the possibility of reuniting, Hook presented a situation so laden with sarcasm it was impossible to miss his genuine sentiment. He imagined Bernard Sumner coming to him with an expression of regret: “Hey Hooky, sorry about that eight-year court case that cost you six years of earnings. I’m really sorry about it. We should maybe have just had a conversation about it.” The bassist’s flat tone when describing this hypothetical encounter made clear that such an apology remains squarely within the domain of fantasy. Without genuine acknowledgement of the harm done and the monetary cost extracted, Hook seems reluctant to consider the prospect of reconciliation.
Yet Hook hasn’t completely closed the door on the possibility of eventual reconciliation, recognising 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 made a compelling parallel, proposing that even those we believe we could not pardon might surprise us with a act of genuine contrition. However, the responsibility, he made clear, rests squarely on his ex-bandmates to take the initial decisive action toward reconciliation—something that appears improbable before the autumn ceremony.
Conflicting Statements from Each Side
Whilst Peter Hook has been direct and explicit about his unwillingness to take part in any comeback, his former bandmates have presented a markedly separate public stance. Bernard Sumner, Stephen Morris and Gillian Gilbert have largely remained silent on the matter, without confirming or denying their prospects for the November induction event. This asymmetry in communication has left considerable ambiguity about how the occasion will unfold, with Hook’s uncompromising stand presenting a marked contrast with the relative quiet originating from the other three members. The absence of a coordinated response from New Order suggests either a calculated strategy of restraint or a deep-seated disagreement about how to manage the situation publicly.
The distinction in their statements to the media reflects the significant divide that has opened between the parties since their split in 2007 and subsequent legal entanglement. Hook’s readiness to discuss openly about his complaints stands in sharp opposition to what appears to be a inclination among his ex-bandmates to allow the situation to settle. Whether this quietness indicates an attempt to preserve dignity, prevent additional disputes, or just proceed without dwelling on past disputes is uncertain. What is certain is that the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame induction will occur against a context of essentially conflicting stories 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 Diminishing Prospects
The specter of Oasis hangs over talk surrounding potential rock reunions, yet Hook’s situation differs markedly from Liam and Noel Gallagher’s latest reunion. Whilst the Gallagher brothers finally returned to a working relationship after close to thirty years of acrimony, Hook seems considerably reluctant toward such a resolution. The Oasis reunion demonstrated that even the most fractious band relationships could be mended, notably when financial incentives and public sentiment converged. However, Hook’s ethical position implies that money and nostalgia on their own cannot span the divide created by what he regards as a core betrayal in the 2011 reformation.
Hook’s qualified remarks—implying a reunion could happen only if Sumner provided a genuine expression of remorse—points to a glimmer of possibility, though his sarcastic delivery suggests he harbours minimal real hope of such an overture. The bassist has devoted considerable time working through the emotional and financial fallout from the legal dispute, and that built-up resentment seems to have hardened into something less susceptible to the sort of commercial pressures that might otherwise compel a reunion. Unlike Oasis, where each side ultimately recognised their common heritage and mutual benefit, Hook seems determined to protect his integrity more than anything, even if it means forgoing a potentially triumphant moment at one of rock music’s most prestigious ceremonies.
- Hook stresses morality over commercial opportunity in his decision not to reunite
- The 2017 financial settlement resolved financial matters but not emotional wounds
- Genuine reconciliation would require unprecedented acknowledgement from Sumner