Peter Hook has firmly rejected reuniting with his ex-bandmates from New Order and Joy Division at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony in November, citing years of acrimony and a lengthy court dispute that he says caused him significant harm. The 70-year-old bassist, who established both iconic British bands, made his stance abundantly plain when asked if he would take the stage with Bernard Sumner, Stephen Morris and Gillian Gilbert for the recognition. “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 optics of a reunion. Whilst Hook says he remains keen to attend the ceremony, his decision not to perform alongside his ex-bandmates promises to diminish what should be a celebratory moment for two of Britain’s most impactful musical groups.
A Decade of Quiet and Judicial Struggle
The foundations of Hook’s antagonism are profound, rooted in the aftermath of Ian Curtis’s passing in 1980. When the Joy Division frontman died by suicide, the surviving band members later reformed under the New Order moniker, with Hook serving as the band’s bass player throughout their most profitable era. However, the partnership began to fracture when Hook departed in 2007, thinking then that New Order had exhausted its potential. His departure, he felt, would signal the definitive end of the group. Instead, his onetime partners possessed alternative ideas.
When Sumner, Morris and Gilbert revived New Order in 2011 without seeking input from Hook, the bassist felt betrayed. The move triggered a long-running and costly legal dispute over the band’s name and royalties — a conflict that Hook maintains took up the equivalent of six years of his wages. Though the conflict 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 communication with Morris has been confined to infrequent exchanges over the last four to five years, making reconciliation unlikely before November’s ceremony.
- Ian Curtis died by suicide in 1980, leading to Joy Division’s dissolution
- Hook departed from New Order in 2007, believing the band had finished
- The surviving members reformed without Hook in 2011, sparking court battles
- Settlement reached in 2017, but interpersonal bonds remain fractured
The Introduction Nobody Expected to Mend
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 bittersweet affair, marked more by acknowledgement of Joy Division and New Order’s historical significance than by any sense of genuine connection. The bassist has been emphatic that his attendance is motivated by reasons completely distinct from his distant band members. “For numerous reasons … not one other member of the band is a reason,” he stated bluntly, highlighting precisely how divided the group has become despite their monumental influence on post-punk and electronic genres.
The admission, whilst a fitting tribute to two bands that fundamentally reshaped 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 victorious occasion into a public acknowledgement of internal discord. The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, typically a venue for uplifting occasions and unexpected reunions, will instead bear witness to one of rock music’s most anguished and persistent rifts.
Hook’s Requirements for Resolution
When pressed on the possibility of reconciliation, Hook presented a scenario so laden with 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 court case 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 musician’s flat tone when outlining this imagined meeting made evident that such an apology remains firmly in the realm of fantasy. Without real recognition of the damage caused and the financial toll imposed, Hook seems unwilling to entertain thoughts of reuniting.
Yet Hook hasn’t completely closed the door on the prospect of eventual reconciliation, acknowledging that human nature is unpredictable and feelings can change unexpectedly. “So you can’t say for certain, dear. Life is brimming with surprises. I’m sure that could be a lovely one,” he said with characteristic wryness. The bassist made a relatable parallel, suggesting that even those we believe we could not pardon 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 rapprochement—something that appears improbable before the November ceremony.
Conflicting Statements from Both Sides
Whilst Peter Hook has been direct and explicit about his rejection of involvement in any reunion event, his former bandmates have presented a distinctly contrasting public posture. Bernard Sumner, Stephen Morris and Gillian Gilbert have largely remained silent on the matter, without confirming or denying their prospects for the induction ceremony in November. This imbalance in messaging has created substantial uncertainty about how the evening will take shape, with Hook’s resistant position standing in stark contrast to the subdued tone coming from the three other band members. The missing coordinated statement from New Order points to either a intentional approach of restraint or a underlying disagreement about how to address the situation publicly.
The distinction in their public communications reflects the broader chasm that has emerged between the parties since their 2007 split and subsequent legal entanglement. Hook’s readiness to discuss openly about his complaints stands in marked contrast to what appears to be a inclination among his ex-bandmates to let the matter rest. Whether this quiet reflects an attempt to preserve dignity, sidestep more confrontation, or merely progress ahead without dwelling on past disputes is uncertain. What is clear is that the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame entry will happen 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 Precedent and Diminishing Prospects
The specter of Oasis dominates talk surrounding potential rock reunions, yet Hook’s situation differs markedly from Liam and Noel Gallagher’s latest reunion. Whilst the Gallagher brothers eventually found their way back to a collaborative arrangement after almost thirty years of bitterness, Hook looks far less willing toward such an outcome. The Oasis reunion proved that even the most contentious band relationships could be repaired, particularly when monetary rewards and audience sentiment coincided. However, Hook’s principled stance suggests that monetary considerations and nostalgia by themselves cannot bridge the divide created by what he considers to be a fundamental betrayal during the 2011 reformation.
Hook’s conditional language—implying a reunion could happen only if Sumner provided a genuine expression of remorse—hints at a faint chance, though his sarcastic delivery indicates he harbours minimal real hope of such an overture. The bassist has devoted considerable time working through the psychological and monetary consequences from the legal dispute, and that accumulated grievance seems to have hardened into something more resistant to the sort of commercial pressures that might otherwise compel a reunion. Unlike Oasis, where each side ultimately recognised their common heritage and mutual benefit, Hook seems determined to protect his integrity above all else, even if it means forgoing a possibly glorious occasion at one of the most esteemed events in rock music.
- Hook highlights ethical principles ahead of financial gain in his decision not to reunite
- The 2017 court agreement settled financial matters but not emotional damage
- Genuine reconciliation would demand extraordinary recognition from Sumner