Peter Hook has categorically ruled out 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 drawn-out legal fight that he says resulted in substantial losses. The 70-year-old bassist, who founded both legendary British acts, 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 principles matter more than the optics of a reunion. Whilst Hook says he is still eager to attend the ceremony, his decision not to perform alongside his former colleagues promises to cast a shadow over what should be a triumphant occasion for two of Britain’s most impactful musical groups.
Ten Years of Quietude and Court Battles
The roots of Hook’s animosity stretch far, rooted in the wake of Ian Curtis’s death in 1980. When the Joy Division lead singer ended his life, the surviving band members later reformed under the New Order banner, with Hook acting as the band’s bassist throughout their most commercially successful years. However, the relationship commenced breaking down when Hook exited in 2007, believing at the time that New Order had exhausted its potential. His leaving, he believed, would signal the ultimate termination of the group. Instead, his onetime partners harboured different intentions.
When Sumner, Morris and Gilbert revived New Order in 2011 without seeking input from Hook, the bassist experienced betrayal. The move sparked a protracted and expensive legal dispute over financial rights and band ownership — a conflict that Hook claims consumed six years’ worth of his wages. Though the dispute was eventually settled in 2017, the emotional and financial impact has left scars that remain unhealed. Hook remains estranged from Sumner or Gilbert in 15 years, and his contact with Morris has been limited to occasional contact over the last four to five years, leaving little room for reconciliation before November’s ceremony.
- Ian Curtis took his own life in 1980, resulting in Joy Division’s dissolution
- Hook left New Order in 2007, believing the band had run its course
- Remaining members reunited without Hook in 2011, sparking court battles
- Settlement reached in 2017, but personal relationships stay broken
The Introduction No One Anticipated to Restore
Despite his refusal to participate the stage with his ex-band members, Hook has confirmed he will attend 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 bassist has been emphatic 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, underscoring just how fractured the group has become despite their significant impact on post-punk and electronic genres.
The induction, 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 stark reminder 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 painful and enduring rifts.
Hook’s Terms for Resolution
When pressed on the possibility of reuniting, Hook presented a scenario so full of sarcasm it was clear his true feelings. He envisioned Bernard Sumner coming to him with an apology: “Hey Hooky, sorry about that eight-year legal battle 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 hypothetical encounter made evident that such an apology stays squarely within the domain of fantasy. Without genuine acknowledgement of the harm done and the financial toll extracted, Hook seems reluctant to entertain thoughts of reuniting.
Yet Hook hasn’t entirely closed the door on the prospect of eventual reconciliation, recognising that people is unpredictable and emotions can shift unexpectedly. “So you never know, 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 onus, he made clear, rests squarely on his former colleagues to take the first meaningful step toward reconciliation—something that appears improbable before the autumn ceremony.
Opposing Views from Each Side
Whilst Peter Hook has been direct and explicit about his rejection of involvement in any comeback, his former bandmates have maintained a notably different public posture. Bernard Sumner, Stephen Morris and Gillian Gilbert have mostly stayed quiet on the issue, without confirming or denying their prospects for the November induction event. This imbalance in messaging has left considerable ambiguity about how the occasion will develop, with Hook’s resistant position standing in stark contrast to the comparative silence coming from the other three members. The absence of a coordinated response from New Order indicates either a deliberate strategy of restraint or a deep-seated disagreement about how to address the matter publicly.
The distinction in their statements to the media demonstrates the broader chasm that has opened between the parties since their 2007 separation and subsequent legal entanglement. Hook’s willingness to speak candidly about his concerns stands in sharp opposition to what appears to be a inclination among his ex-bandmates to let the matter rest. Whether this quietness indicates an attempt to preserve dignity, avoid further conflict, or just proceed without dwelling on past disputes stays uncertain. What is clear is that the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame admission will take place 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 Case and Fading Hope
The specter of Oasis hangs over conversations about possible rock reunions, 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 almost thirty years of bitterness, Hook appears far less inclined toward such a settlement. The Oasis comeback showed that even the most fractious band relationships were capable of healing, notably when monetary rewards and audience sentiment converged. However, Hook’s ethical position suggests that financial gain and nostalgia alone cannot bridge the divide created by what he regards as a core betrayal in the 2011 reformation.
Hook’s conditional language—suggesting reconciliation might occur solely should Sumner provided a genuine expression of remorse—hints at a glimmer of possibility, though his sardonic tone suggests he holds little genuine expectation of such an overture. 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 type of financial incentives that could otherwise force a reconciliation. Unlike Oasis, where each side eventually acknowledged their shared legacy and reciprocal advantage, Hook seems determined to protect his integrity 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 decision not to reunite
- The 2017 legal settlement addressed financial matters but not emotional damage
- Genuine reconciliation would require remarkable admission from Sumner