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 in November, citing sustained conflict and a lengthy court dispute that he says caused him significant harm. The septuagenarian bass player, who founded both legendary British acts, made his views unmistakably evident when asked if he would perform together with Bernard Sumner, Stephen Morris and Gillian Gilbert for the honour. “No. No. Not following what they did to me and my family, no,” Hook told Rolling Stone, adding that values are important more than the look of getting back together. Whilst Hook says he is still eager to attend the ceremony, his decision not to perform alongside his former colleagues promises to diminish what should be a celebratory moment for two of Britain’s most influential musical acts.
A Decade of Silence and Legal Turmoil
The foundations of Hook’s resentment stretch far, rooted in the wake of Ian Curtis’s death in 1980. When the Joy Division lead singer died by suicide, the remaining members subsequently reunited under the New Order moniker, with Hook acting as the band’s bassist throughout their most profitable era. However, the relationship started to deteriorate when Hook exited in 2007, believing at the time that New Order had exhausted its potential. His exit, he believed, would constitute the ultimate termination of the outfit. Instead, his ex-colleagues possessed alternative ideas.
When Sumner, Morris and Gilbert reconstituted New Order in 2011 without informing Hook, the bassist felt let down. The action triggered a lengthy and costly legal dispute over royalties and the band’s name — a battle that Hook asserts consumed six years’ worth of his wages. Though the dispute was eventually settled in 2017, the financial and emotional toll has resulted in enduring damage. Hook remains estranged from Sumner or Gilbert in 15 years, and his contact with Morris has been restricted to sporadic communication 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 run its course
- The surviving members reformed without Hook in 2011, sparking court battles
- Agreement achieved in 2017, but personal relationships remain fractured
The Onboarding Nobody Expected 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 induction in November. However, his presence will be a mixed experience, marked more by acknowledgement of the historical importance of Joy Division and New Order than by any sense of familial warmth. The bassist has been emphatic that his presence is driven by factors entirely separate from his distant band members. “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 significant impact on post-punk and electronic music.
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 triumphant celebration 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 Requirements for Reconciliation
When asked about the possibility of reconciliation, Hook offered a situation so full of sarcasm it was clear his genuine sentiment. He envisioned 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 imagined meeting made evident that such an apology remains firmly in the realm of fantasy. Without genuine acknowledgement of the damage caused and the financial toll extracted, Hook appears reluctant to consider the prospect of reconciliation.
Yet Hook hasn’t entirely closed the door on the possibility of eventual reconciliation, acknowledging that people is unpredictable and feelings can shift unexpectedly. “So you never know, dear. Life is brimming with surprises. I’m sure that could be a wonderful one,” he said with typical wryness. The bassist made 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 former colleagues to take the first meaningful step toward rapprochement—something that appears improbable before the November ceremony.
Conflicting Statements from Either Party
Whilst Peter Hook has been forthright and unambiguous about his refusal to participate in any reunion event, his previous musical partners have maintained a notably different public stance. Bernard Sumner, Stephen Morris and Gillian Gilbert have mostly stayed quiet on the subject, neither confirming nor denying their plans for the induction ceremony in November. This asymmetry in communication has resulted in significant ambiguity about how the event will take shape, with Hook’s uncompromising stand contrasting sharply against the subdued tone coming from the other three members. The missing coordinated statement from New Order suggests either a deliberate strategy of restraint or a fundamental disagreement about how to manage the circumstances publicly.
The divergence in their statements to the media reflects the significant divide that has developed between the parties since their 2007 split and ensuing legal disputes. Hook’s readiness to discuss openly about his complaints stands in stark contrast to what appears to be a tendency from his past associates to let the matter rest. Whether this quietness indicates an effort to maintain respect, sidestep more confrontation, or simply move forward without revisiting previous disagreements remains unclear. What is clear is that the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame admission will take place against a setting of essentially conflicting stories 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 Case and Diminishing Prospects
The spectre of Oasis hangs over conversations about prospective rock comebacks, yet Hook’s position diverges notably from Liam and Noel Gallagher’s recent reconciliation. Whilst the Gallagher brothers ultimately reconciled to a collaborative arrangement after nearly three decades of acrimony, Hook seems considerably reluctant toward such an outcome. The Oasis comeback showed that even the most contentious band relationships could be mended, notably when economic incentives and public opinion coincided. However, Hook’s ethical position implies that financial gain and nostalgia on their own cannot span the chasm created by what he views as a essential betrayal during the 2011 reformation.
Hook’s conditional language—suggesting reconciliation might occur only if Sumner offered a heartfelt apology—hints at a faint chance, though his sarcastic delivery suggests he holds little genuine expectation of such an gesture. The bass player has spent years processing 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 reunion. Unlike Oasis, where both parties eventually acknowledged their common heritage and mutual benefit, Hook seems determined to safeguard his principles above all else, even if it means forgoing a potentially triumphant moment at one of the most esteemed events in rock music.
- Hook emphasises ethical principles ahead of financial gain in his refusal to reunite
- The 2017 legal settlement addressed financial matters but not emotional damage
- True reconciliation would necessitate extraordinary recognition from Sumner