Peter Hook has definitively dismissed reuniting with his former New Order and Joy Division bandmates at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony in November, citing prolonged discord and a drawn-out legal fight that he says caused him significant harm. The septuagenarian bass player, who founded both legendary British acts, made his position crystal clear 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 ethics count more than the optics of a reunion. Whilst Hook says he is still eager to attend the ceremony, his refusal to perform alongside his ex-bandmates promises to darken what should be a celebratory moment for two of the UK’s most significant bands.
A Decade of Quietude and Court Battles
The origins of Hook’s resentment are profound, stretching back to the wake of Ian Curtis’s death in 1980. When the Joy Division frontman ended his life, the surviving band members eventually regrouped under the New Order name, with Hook functioning as the group’s bass player throughout their most commercially successful era. However, the relationship started to deteriorate when Hook departed in 2007, believing at the time that New Order had run its course. His exit, he thought, would signal the final conclusion of the band. Instead, his onetime partners had other plans.
When Sumner, Morris and Gilbert revived New Order in 2011 without seeking input from Hook, the bassist felt betrayed. The decision set off a long-running and costly legal conflict over financial rights and band ownership — a battle that Hook maintains cost him the equivalent of six years of his wages. Though the conflict 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 communication with Morris has been restricted to sporadic communication over the last four to five years, leaving little room for reconciliation before November’s ceremony.
- Ian Curtis died by suicide in 1980, resulting in Joy Division’s dissolution
- Hook departed from New Order in 2007, believing the band had finished
- Remaining members reunited without Hook in 2011, sparking legal disputes
- Settlement reached in 2017, but interpersonal bonds stay broken
The Introduction No One Expected to Restore
Despite his refusal to participate the stage with his former bandmates, Hook has stated he will be present at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame ceremony in November. However, his presence will be a mixed experience, marked more by acknowledgement of Joy Division and New Order’s historical significance than by any sense of familial warmth. The bass player has been clear that his attendance is motivated by factors entirely separate 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 genres.
The admission, whilst a deserved honour to two bands that fundamentally reshaped 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 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 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 Requirements for Reconciliation
When pressed on the prospect of reconciliation, Hook offered 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 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 realm of fantasy. Without real recognition of the harm done and the financial toll imposed, Hook seems unwilling to consider the prospect of reconciliation.
Yet Hook hasn’t completely closed the door on the prospect of eventual reconciliation, acknowledging that people is unpredictable and feelings can change 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, proposing that even those we believe we could never forgive might surprise us with a gesture of sincere remorse. However, the responsibility, he made clear, rests firmly on his ex-bandmates to take the initial decisive action toward rapprochement—something that appears improbable before the November ceremony.
Opposing Views from Either Party
Whilst Peter Hook has been clear and unequivocal about his refusal to participate in any reunion, his previous musical partners have presented a distinctly contrasting public stance. Bernard Sumner, Stephen Morris and Gillian Gilbert have mostly stayed quiet on the matter, without confirming or denying their plans for the induction ceremony in November. This imbalance in messaging has created substantial uncertainty about how the event will develop, with Hook’s uncompromising stand standing in stark contrast to the comparative silence emanating from the remaining three members. The lack of a unified response from New Order suggests either a deliberate strategy of restraint or a fundamental disagreement about how to handle the matter publicly.
The divergence in their public messaging demonstrates the widening gulf that has emerged between the parties since their 2007 separation and subsequent legal entanglement. Hook’s preparedness to talk frankly about his grievances stands in sharp opposition 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, avoid further conflict, or just proceed without revisiting previous disagreements remains unclear. What is clear is that the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame entry will happen against a backdrop of irreconcilably different accounts about what happened 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 shadow of Oasis dominates discussions of possible rock reunions, yet Hook’s situation differs markedly from Liam and Noel Gallagher’s latest reunion. Whilst the Gallagher brothers finally returned to a functional partnership after close to thirty years of acrimony, Hook seems considerably reluctant toward such a resolution. The Oasis reunion demonstrated that even the most contentious band relationships were capable of healing, especially when financial incentives and public sentiment converged. However, Hook’s principled stand indicates that monetary considerations and nostalgia alone cannot bridge the divide created by what he considers to be a core betrayal during the 2011 reformation.
Hook’s conditional language—suggesting a reunion could happen only if Sumner offered a heartfelt apology—hints at a glimmer of possibility, 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 seems to have hardened 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 reciprocal advantage, Hook appears resolved to safeguard his principles above all else, even if it means forgoing a potentially triumphant moment 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 settled financial matters but not emotional wounds
- Genuine reconciliation would necessitate remarkable admission from Sumner