Peter Hook has categorically ruled out reuniting with his former New Order and Joy Division bandmates at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony this November, citing years of acrimony and a lengthy court dispute that he says cost him dearly. The 70-year-old bassist, who established both iconic British bands, made his views unmistakably evident 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 ethics count more than the appearance of reuniting. Whilst Hook says he continues to want to attend the ceremony, his decision not to perform alongside his former colleagues promises to darken what should be a triumphant occasion for two of the UK’s most significant bands.
A Decade of Quiet and Judicial Struggle
The foundations of Hook’s antagonism stretch far, rooted in the period following of Ian Curtis’s death in 1980. When the Joy Division lead singer died by suicide, the surviving band members subsequently reunited under the New Order name, with Hook serving as the band’s bass player throughout their most lucrative era. However, the dynamic started to deteriorate when Hook departed in 2007, believing at the time that New Order had run its course. His departure, he felt, would mark the ultimate termination of the group. Instead, his onetime partners harboured different intentions.
When Sumner, Morris and Gilbert reconstituted New Order in 2011 without informing 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 maintains took up the equivalent of six years of his wages. Though the disagreement 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, leaving little room for reconciliation before November’s ceremony.
- Ian Curtis died by suicide in 1980, leading to Joy Division’s breakup
- Hook left New Order in 2007, believing the band had finished
- Remaining members reunited without Hook in 2011, sparking legal disputes
- Agreement achieved in 2017, but personal relationships stay broken
The Onboarding Nobody 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 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 reasons completely distinct from his estranged colleagues. “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 music.
The admission, whilst a deserved honour to two bands that profoundly transformed British music, has become something of an uncomfortable situation 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 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 painful and enduring rifts.
Hook’s Requirements for Resolution
When pressed on the prospect of reconciliation, Hook presented a situation so laden with sarcasm it was impossible to miss his true feelings. 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 of earnings. I’m really sorry about it. We should maybe have just had a chat about it.” The bassist’s flat tone when describing this hypothetical encounter made clear that such an apology remains squarely within the domain of fantasy. Without real recognition of the harm done and the financial toll extracted, Hook appears reluctant to consider the prospect of reuniting.
Yet Hook hasn’t entirely closed the door on the possibility 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 wonderful one,” he said with characteristic wryness. The bassist drew a relatable 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 squarely on his former colleagues to take the initial decisive action toward rapprochement—something that appears improbable before the November ceremony.
Opposing Views from Both Sides
Whilst Peter Hook has been clear and unequivocal about his unwillingness to take part in any reunion, his former bandmates have maintained a notably different public position. Bernard Sumner, Stephen Morris and Gillian Gilbert have mostly stayed quiet on the issue, without confirming or denying their intentions for the November induction event. This imbalance in messaging has resulted in significant ambiguity about how the event will take shape, with Hook’s resistant position contrasting sharply against the subdued tone emanating from the other three members. The absence of a coordinated response from New Order indicates either a calculated strategy of restraint or a underlying disagreement about how to manage the circumstances publicly.
The divergence in their public communications demonstrates the significant divide that has developed between the parties since their 2007 split and subsequent legal entanglement. Hook’s readiness to discuss openly about his concerns stands in stark contrast to what appears to be a tendency from his past associates to allow the situation to settle. Whether this quiet reflects an effort to maintain respect, avoid further conflict, or simply move forward without revisiting previous disagreements stays uncertain. What is certain is that the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame entry will happen against a setting of essentially conflicting stories 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 Precedent and Diminishing Prospects
The specter of Oasis looms large over talk surrounding prospective rock comebacks, yet Hook’s position diverges notably from Liam and Noel Gallagher’s recent rapprochement. Whilst the Gallagher brothers ultimately reconciled to a functional partnership after almost thirty years of acrimony, Hook appears far less inclined toward such a settlement. The Oasis comeback showed that even the most fractious band relationships could be repaired, especially when economic incentives and audience sentiment converged. However, Hook’s principled stand suggests that monetary considerations and nostalgia alone cannot bridge the rift created by what he views as a core betrayal at the time of the 2011 reformation.
Hook’s conditional language—suggesting reconciliation might occur only if Sumner provided a genuine expression of remorse—hints at a glimmer of possibility, though his sarcastic delivery indicates he holds little genuine expectation of such an overture. The bass player has devoted considerable time processing the emotional and financial fallout from the legal dispute, and that built-up resentment appears to have calcified into something more resistant to the sort of commercial pressures that could otherwise force a reconciliation. Unlike Oasis, where both parties eventually acknowledged their common heritage and reciprocal advantage, Hook seems determined to protect his integrity more than anything, even if it entails sacrificing a possibly glorious occasion at one of rock music’s most prestigious ceremonies.
- Hook emphasises ethical principles ahead of financial gain in his decision not to reunite
- The 2017 financial settlement addressed monetary issues but not psychological hurt
- True reconciliation would require unprecedented acknowledgement from Sumner