Peter Hook has firmly rejected reuniting with his former New Order and Joy Division bandmates at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony in November, citing sustained conflict and a protracted legal battle that he says resulted in substantial losses. The septuagenarian bass player, who established both iconic British bands, 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 ethics count more than the optics of a reunion. Whilst Hook says he remains keen to attend the ceremony, his unwillingness to play 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 origins of Hook’s animosity stretch far, extending to the period following of Ian Curtis’s passing in 1980. When the Joy Division vocalist ended his life, the surviving band members eventually regrouped under the New Order moniker, with Hook serving as the band’s bassist throughout their most commercially successful period. However, the dynamic started to deteriorate when Hook exited in 2007, believing at the time that New Order had run its course. His exit, he felt, would constitute the final conclusion of the group. Instead, his ex-colleagues harboured different intentions.
When Sumner, Morris and Gilbert reconstituted New Order in 2011 without consulting Hook, the bassist felt let down. The move set off a lengthy and costly legal dispute over financial rights and band ownership — a dispute that Hook claims took up six years’ worth of his wages. Though the conflict was eventually settled in 2017, the emotional and financial impact has resulted in enduring damage. Hook has not communicated with Sumner or Gilbert in 15 years, and his interactions with Morris has been restricted to sporadic communication over the preceding four or 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, convinced the band had run its course
- The surviving members reformed without Hook in 2011, sparking legal disputes
- Agreement achieved in 2017, but interpersonal bonds remain fractured
The Induction Nobody Expected to Heal
Despite his refusal to participate the stage with his ex-band members, Hook has stated he will be present at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame ceremony in November. However, his attendance will prove a mixed experience, marked primarily by recognition 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 factors entirely separate from his estranged colleagues. “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 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 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 painful and enduring rifts.
Hook’s Requirements for Resolution
When pressed on the possibility of reconciliation, Hook offered a situation so full of sarcasm it was clear his genuine sentiment. He envisioned Bernard Sumner approaching him with an expression of regret: “Hey Hooky, sorry about that eight-year legal battle that set you back six years’ wages. I’m really sorry about it. We should maybe have just had a chat about it.” The bassist’s deadpan delivery when outlining this imagined meeting made clear that such an apology remains squarely within the realm of fantasy. Without genuine acknowledgement of the harm done and the financial toll extracted, Hook appears unwilling to entertain thoughts of reconciliation.
Yet Hook hasn’t entirely closed the door on the possibility of future peace, 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 drew a compelling parallel, proposing 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 firmly on his former colleagues to take the initial decisive action toward reconciliation—something that appears improbable before the autumn ceremony.
Contrasting Perspectives from Both Sides
Whilst Peter Hook has been forthright and unambiguous 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 predominantly refrained from comment on the matter, avoiding confirmation or denial of their intentions for the induction ceremony in November. This imbalance in messaging has created substantial uncertainty about how the event will unfold, with Hook’s uncompromising stand contrasting sharply against the comparative silence coming from the remaining three members. The lack of a unified response from New Order points to either a deliberate strategy of restraint or a deep-seated disagreement about how to handle the situation publicly.
The split in their public messaging illustrates the widening gulf that has opened between the parties since their 2007 split and subsequent legal entanglement. Hook’s preparedness to talk frankly about his complaints stands in sharp opposition to what appears to be a preference from his former colleagues to allow the situation to settle. Whether this quietness indicates an effort to maintain respect, prevent additional disputes, or simply move forward without dwelling on past disputes is uncertain. What is evident is that the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame entry will happen against a backdrop of essentially conflicting stories about what occurred 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 Precedent and Diminishing Prospects
The specter of Oasis dominates discussions of possible rock reunions, yet Hook’s circumstances differ significantly from Liam and Noel Gallagher’s latest reunion. Whilst the Gallagher brothers finally returned to a collaborative arrangement after close to thirty years of bitterness, Hook seems considerably reluctant toward such a resolution. The Oasis reunion proved that even the most strained band relationships were capable of healing, notably when economic incentives and audience sentiment aligned. However, Hook’s principled stand implies that financial gain and nostalgia on their own cannot span the divide created by what he regards as a core betrayal during the 2011 reformation.
Hook’s qualified remarks—implying reconciliation might occur only if Sumner offered a genuine expression of remorse—points to a glimmer of possibility, though his sardonic tone indicates he holds little genuine expectation of such an gesture. The bass player has spent years working through the psychological and monetary consequences from the legal dispute, and that built-up resentment seems to have hardened into something less susceptible to the sort of commercial pressures that could otherwise force a reconciliation. Unlike Oasis, where both parties eventually acknowledged their shared legacy and mutual benefit, Hook seems determined to protect his integrity above all else, even if it means forgoing a potentially triumphant moment at one of the most esteemed events in rock music.
- Hook stresses morality over commercial opportunity in his refusal to reunite
- The 2017 financial settlement settled monetary issues but not emotional wounds
- Genuine reconciliation would demand unprecedented acknowledgement from Sumner