Peter Hook has firmly rejected reuniting with his former New Order and Joy Division bandmates at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony this November, citing sustained conflict and a lengthy court dispute that he says caused him significant harm. The septuagenarian bass player, who established both iconic British bands, made his views unmistakably evident when asked if he would share 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 ethics count more than the optics of a reunion. Whilst Hook says he continues to want to attend the ceremony, his unwillingness to play 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 origins of Hook’s resentment are profound, rooted in the aftermath of Ian Curtis’s death in 1980. When the Joy Division frontman took his own life, the surviving band members subsequently reunited under the New Order moniker, with Hook acting as the group’s bass player throughout their most lucrative period. However, the relationship started to deteriorate when Hook departed in 2007, thinking then that New Order had exhausted its potential. His leaving, he thought, would mark the definitive end of the outfit. Instead, his ex-colleagues possessed alternative ideas.
When Sumner, Morris and Gilbert revived New Order in 2011 without seeking input from Hook, the bassist experienced betrayal. The action triggered a lengthy and costly legal dispute over the band’s name and royalties — a conflict that Hook asserts took up the equivalent of six years of his wages. Though the conflict was eventually settled in 2017, the financial and emotional toll 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 last four to five years, offering scant opportunity for healing before November’s ceremony.
- Ian Curtis died by suicide in 1980, resulting in Joy Division’s dissolution
- Hook departed from New Order in 2007, convinced the band had finished
- The surviving members reformed without Hook in 2011, sparking court battles
- Settlement reached in 2017, but interpersonal bonds stay broken
The Onboarding No One Anticipated to Heal
Despite his unwillingness to share the stage with his former bandmates, 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 many, many reasons … not one other member of the band is a reason,” he said plainly, highlighting precisely how divided 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 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 Conditions for Rapprochement
When pressed on the possibility of reconciliation, Hook offered a situation so full of sarcasm it was impossible to miss his true feelings. He envisioned Bernard Sumner coming to him with an apology: “Hey Hooky, sorry about that eight-year legal battle that set you back six years of earnings. I’m really sorry about it. We should maybe have just had a chat about it.” The bassist’s deadpan delivery when describing this imagined meeting 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 appears reluctant to entertain thoughts of reconciliation.
Yet Hook hasn’t entirely closed the door on the prospect of future peace, recognising that human nature is unpredictable and feelings can change unexpectedly. “So you never know, 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, suggesting that even those we believe we could not pardon might surprise us with a act 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 November ceremony.
Opposing Views from Each Side
Whilst Peter Hook has been direct and explicit about his refusal to participate in any comeback, his former bandmates have presented a notably different public stance. Bernard Sumner, Stephen Morris and Gillian Gilbert have largely remained silent on the matter, avoiding confirmation or denial of their prospects for the November induction event. This asymmetry in communication has resulted in significant ambiguity about how the event will develop, with Hook’s resistant position contrasting sharply against the comparative silence coming from the other three members. The missing coordinated statement from New Order points to either a intentional approach of restraint or a fundamental disagreement about how to manage the situation publicly.
The divergence in their public messaging reflects the widening gulf that has opened between the parties since their split in 2007 and subsequent legal entanglement. Hook’s willingness to speak candidly about his grievances stands in sharp opposition to what appears to be a tendency from his past associates to allow the situation to settle. Whether this quietness indicates an effort to maintain respect, avoid further conflict, or simply move forward without dwelling on past disputes remains unclear. What is certain is that the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame admission will take place against a setting of irreconcilably different accounts about what happened 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 Precedent and Fading Hope
The specter 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 ultimately reconciled to a collaborative arrangement after nearly three decades of acrimony, Hook looks far less willing toward such a resolution. The Oasis comeback showed that even the most contentious band relationships could be mended, notably when monetary rewards and public sentiment aligned. However, Hook’s principled stance suggests that financial gain and nostalgia alone cannot bridge the chasm created by what he considers to be a fundamental betrayal in the 2011 reformation.
Hook’s conditional language—implying a reunion could happen solely should Sumner offered a heartfelt apology—hints at a glimmer of possibility, though his sarcastic delivery suggests he holds little genuine expectation of such an overture. The bassist 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 sort of commercial pressures that might otherwise compel a reunion. Unlike Oasis, where both parties eventually acknowledged their common heritage and mutual benefit, 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 financial settlement addressed financial matters but not emotional wounds
- True reconciliation would necessitate remarkable admission from Sumner