Peter Hook has categorically ruled out reuniting with his ex-bandmates from New Order and Joy Division at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony this November, citing sustained conflict and a drawn-out legal fight that he says resulted in substantial losses. The 70-year-old bassist, 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 values are important more than the optics of a reunion. Whilst Hook says he remains keen to attend the ceremony, his decision not to perform alongside his former colleagues promises to darken what should be a celebratory moment for two of Britain’s most influential musical acts.
A Decade of Silence and Legal Turmoil
The roots of Hook’s antagonism are profound, extending to the period following of Ian Curtis’s passing in 1980. When the Joy Division vocalist ended his life, the surviving band members eventually regrouped under the New Order moniker, with Hook serving as the group’s bassist throughout their most commercially successful years. However, the partnership started to deteriorate when Hook departed in 2007, convinced that New Order had exhausted its potential. His leaving, he believed, would mark the ultimate termination of the band. Instead, his onetime partners had other plans.
When Sumner, Morris and Gilbert revived New Order in 2011 without consulting Hook, the bassist felt betrayed. The action triggered a lengthy and costly legal conflict over royalties and the band’s name — a conflict that Hook claims consumed the equivalent of six years of his wages. Though the conflict was ultimately resolved in 2017, the emotional and financial impact has created lasting wounds. Hook has not communicated with Sumner or Gilbert in 15 years, and his interactions with Morris has been limited to occasional contact over the past four or five years, making reconciliation unlikely before November’s ceremony.
- Ian Curtis died by suicide in 1980, leading to Joy Division’s dissolution
- Hook departed from New Order in 2007, believing the band had finished
- Remaining members reunited without Hook in 2011, sparking court battles
- Agreement achieved in 2017, but personal relationships remain fractured
The Induction Nobody Anticipated to Mend
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 induction in November. However, his attendance will prove a mixed experience, marked more by acknowledgement of the historical importance of Joy Division and New Order than by any sense of genuine connection. The bass player has been clear that his attendance is motivated by factors entirely separate from his estranged colleagues. “For numerous 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 genres.
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 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 victorious occasion into a public acknowledgement of internal discord. The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, typically a venue for feel-good moments and unexpected reunions, will instead bear witness to one of rock music’s most anguished and persistent rifts.
Hook’s Conditions for Resolution
When asked about the possibility of reuniting, Hook offered a scenario so laden with sarcasm it was impossible to miss his genuine sentiment. He imagined Bernard Sumner approaching him with an expression of regret: “Hey Hooky, sorry about that eight-year court case 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 imagined meeting made clear that such an apology remains firmly in the domain of fantasy. Without genuine acknowledgement of the damage caused and the monetary cost imposed, Hook seems unwilling to consider the prospect of reuniting.
Yet Hook hasn’t entirely closed the door on the possibility of eventual reconciliation, recognising that people is unpredictable and feelings can shift unexpectedly. “So you can’t say for certain, dear. Life is brimming with surprises. I’m sure that could be a lovely one,” he said with typical wryness. The bassist drew a compelling parallel, suggesting that even those we believe we could never forgive might surprise us with a gesture of genuine contrition. However, the responsibility, he made clear, rests firmly on his ex-bandmates to take the first meaningful step toward reconciliation—something that appears improbable before the November ceremony.
Conflicting Statements from Both Sides
Whilst Peter Hook has been forthright and unambiguous about his rejection of involvement in any reunion, his former bandmates have maintained a distinctly contrasting public posture. Bernard Sumner, Stephen Morris and Gillian Gilbert have predominantly refrained from comment on the issue, neither confirming nor denying their intentions for the November induction event. This disparity in communication has resulted in significant ambiguity about how the evening will unfold, with Hook’s resistant position presenting a marked contrast with the relative quiet coming from the other three members. The absence of a coordinated response from New Order suggests either a intentional approach of restraint or a underlying disagreement about how to address the situation publicly.
The divergence in their statements to the media reflects the widening gulf that has emerged 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 inclination among his ex-bandmates to allow the situation to settle. Whether this silence represents an effort to maintain respect, avoid further conflict, or just proceed without revisiting previous disagreements is uncertain. What is evident is that the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame admission will take place against a setting of fundamentally incompatible narratives about what occurred 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 Diminishing Prospects
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 eventually found their way back to a working relationship after nearly three decades of acrimony, Hook looks far less willing toward such an outcome. The Oasis reunion proved that even the most strained band relationships could be repaired, notably when monetary rewards and public sentiment aligned. However, Hook’s principled stance implies that monetary considerations and nostalgia on their own cannot span the rift created by what he considers to be a fundamental betrayal at the time of the 2011 reformation.
Hook’s qualified remarks—suggesting a reunion could happen only if Sumner offered a heartfelt apology—hints at a faint chance, though his sardonic tone indicates he holds little genuine expectation of such an gesture. The bassist has devoted considerable time processing the emotional and financial fallout from the legal dispute, and that accumulated grievance appears to have calcified into something less susceptible to the sort of commercial pressures 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 above all else, even if it entails sacrificing a possibly glorious occasion at one of rock music’s most prestigious ceremonies.
- Hook stresses ethical principles ahead of financial gain in his refusal to reunite
- The 2017 court agreement addressed financial matters but not emotional damage
- Authentic reconciliation would necessitate remarkable admission from Sumner