Peter Hook has definitively dismissed reuniting with his former New Order and Joy Division bandmates at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony in November, citing years of acrimony and a protracted legal battle that he says cost him dearly. The 70-year-old bassist, who established both iconic British bands, made his stance abundantly plain when asked if he would perform together 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 values are important more than the appearance of reuniting. Whilst Hook says he remains keen to attend the ceremony, his unwillingness to play alongside his former colleagues promises to cast a shadow over what should be a celebratory moment for two of Britain’s most influential musical acts.
Ten Years of Silence and Legal Turmoil
The origins of Hook’s animosity stretch far, rooted in the period following of Ian Curtis’s death in 1980. When the Joy Division frontman took his own life, the remaining members later reformed under the New Order banner, with Hook acting as the band’s bass player throughout their most profitable era. However, the partnership started to deteriorate when Hook left in 2007, believing at the time that New Order had run its course. His departure, he thought, would signal the definitive end of the band. Instead, his former bandmates harboured different intentions.
When Sumner, Morris and Gilbert reconstituted New Order in 2011 without seeking input from Hook, the bassist felt betrayed. The decision triggered a lengthy and costly court battle over royalties and the band’s name — a dispute that Hook claims took up the equivalent of six years of his wages. Though the conflict was finally concluded in 2017, the psychological and monetary cost has resulted in enduring damage. Hook hasn’t spoken to Sumner or Gilbert in 15 years, and his interactions with Morris has been confined to infrequent exchanges over the preceding four or five years, offering scant opportunity for healing before November’s ceremony.
- Ian Curtis died by suicide in 1980, leading to Joy Division’s dissolution
- Hook left New Order in 2007, believing the band had finished
- Remaining members reformed without Hook in 2011, triggering legal disputes
- Agreement achieved in 2017, but interpersonal bonds remain fractured
The Introduction No One Expected to Heal
Despite his refusal to participate the stage with his ex-band members, Hook has confirmed he will attend the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame induction 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 genuine connection. The bassist has been emphatic that his presence is driven by reasons completely distinct from his distant band members. “For numerous reasons … not one other member of the band is a reason,” he said plainly, underscoring just how fractured the group has become despite their monumental influence on post-punk and electronic music.
The induction, 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 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 anguished and persistent rifts.
Hook’s Requirements for Resolution
When pressed on the prospect of reuniting, Hook presented a scenario so laden with sarcasm it was clear his genuine sentiment. He imagined Bernard Sumner coming to him with an expression of regret: “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 conversation about it.” The musician’s flat tone when outlining this hypothetical encounter made evident that such an apology stays squarely within the realm of fantasy. Without real recognition 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, acknowledging that people is unpredictable and feelings can change unexpectedly. “So you can’t say for certain, dear. Life is brimming with surprises. I’m sure that could be a wonderful one,” he said with characteristic wryness. The bassist made a compelling parallel, proposing that even those we believe we could never forgive might surprise us with a act of sincere remorse. However, the responsibility, he made clear, rests firmly on his former colleagues to take the initial decisive action toward reconciliation—something that seems unlikely before the autumn ceremony.
Opposing Views from Either Party
Whilst Peter Hook has been clear and unequivocal about his refusal to participate in any reunion, his ex-band members have maintained a markedly separate public posture. Bernard Sumner, Stephen Morris and Gillian Gilbert have predominantly refrained from comment on the matter, without confirming or denying their intentions for the induction ceremony in November. This disparity in communication has resulted in significant ambiguity about how the evening will unfold, with Hook’s uncompromising stand standing in stark contrast to the relative quiet coming from the three other band members. The absence of a coordinated response from New Order indicates either a deliberate strategy of restraint or a fundamental disagreement about how to handle the circumstances publicly.
The divergence in their statements to the media reflects the broader chasm that has developed between the parties since their split in 2007 and ensuing legal disputes. Hook’s willingness to speak candidly about his complaints stands in marked contrast to what appears to be a tendency from his past associates to let the matter rest. Whether this silence represents an bid to protect reputation, sidestep more confrontation, or merely progress ahead without rehashing old grievances stays uncertain. What is evident is that the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame entry will happen against a backdrop of irreconcilably different accounts about what occurred 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 Case and Fading Hope
The spectre of Oasis looms large over conversations about possible rock reunions, yet Hook’s situation differs markedly from Liam and Noel Gallagher’s recent reconciliation. Whilst the Gallagher brothers finally returned to a working relationship after nearly three decades of hostility, Hook appears far less inclined toward such an outcome. The Oasis comeback showed that even the most fractious band relationships could be mended, especially when financial incentives and public opinion aligned. However, Hook’s ethical position suggests that money and nostalgia on their own cannot span the rift created by what he regards as a fundamental betrayal during the 2011 reformation.
Hook’s qualified remarks—implying a reunion could happen only if Sumner offered a genuine expression of remorse—hints at a faint chance, though his sarcastic delivery suggests he holds little genuine expectation of such an gesture. The bass player has devoted considerable time processing the emotional and financial fallout from the court battle, and that accumulated grievance appears to have calcified into something less susceptible to the sort of commercial pressures that could otherwise force a reconciliation. Unlike Oasis, where each side eventually acknowledged their shared legacy and reciprocal advantage, Hook appears resolved to safeguard his principles more than anything, even if it entails sacrificing a potentially triumphant moment at one of rock music’s most prestigious ceremonies.
- Hook emphasises morality over commercial opportunity in his decision not to reunite
- The 2017 legal settlement resolved financial matters but not psychological hurt
- Genuine reconciliation would require extraordinary recognition from Sumner