Peter Hook has definitively dismissed reuniting with his ex-bandmates from New Order and Joy Division at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony this November, citing years of acrimony and a drawn-out legal fight that he says caused him significant harm. The septuagenarian bass player, who established both iconic British bands, 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 after what they did to me and my family, no,” Hook told Rolling Stone, adding that values are important more than the look of getting back together. Whilst Hook says he continues to want to attend the ceremony, his decision not to perform alongside his former colleagues promises to diminish what should be a celebratory moment for two of the UK’s most significant bands.
Ten Years of Quietude and Court Battles
The roots of Hook’s animosity stretch far, stretching back to the period following of Ian Curtis’s death in 1980. When the Joy Division frontman ended his life, the surviving band members subsequently reunited under the New Order banner, with Hook acting as the group’s bass player throughout their most commercially successful years. However, the relationship began to fracture when Hook exited in 2007, convinced that New Order had run its course. His exit, he thought, would constitute the definitive end of the outfit. Instead, his ex-colleagues harboured different intentions.
When Sumner, Morris and Gilbert reformed New Order in 2011 without seeking input from Hook, the bassist experienced betrayal. The decision triggered a protracted and expensive legal dispute over the band’s name and royalties — a battle that Hook claims cost him six years’ worth of his wages. Though the dispute was eventually settled in 2017, the psychological and monetary cost has resulted in enduring damage. Hook hasn’t spoken to Sumner or Gilbert in 15 years, and his interactions with Morris has been restricted to sporadic communication over the last four to five years, offering scant opportunity for healing before November’s ceremony.
- Ian Curtis took his own life in 1980, resulting in Joy Division’s dissolution
- Hook left New Order in 2007, convinced the band had finished
- The surviving members reformed without Hook in 2011, triggering court battles
- Settlement reached 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 confirmed he will attend the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame ceremony in November. However, his attendance will prove 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 reasons completely distinct from his estranged colleagues. “For many, many 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 music.
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 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 Conditions for Rapprochement
When pressed on the possibility of reconciliation, Hook offered a situation so full of sarcasm it was impossible to miss his genuine sentiment. He imagined Bernard Sumner approaching him with an apology: “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 musician’s deadpan delivery when outlining this hypothetical encounter made evident that such an apology stays firmly in the realm of fantasy. Without real recognition of the damage caused and the monetary cost imposed, Hook seems reluctant to entertain thoughts of reuniting.
Yet Hook hasn’t entirely closed the door on the prospect of eventual reconciliation, acknowledging that human nature is unpredictable and emotions 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 relatable parallel, proposing that even those we believe we could never forgive might surprise us with a act of genuine contrition. However, the responsibility, he made clear, rests firmly on his ex-bandmates to take the first meaningful step toward rapprochement—something that seems unlikely before the autumn ceremony.
Conflicting Statements from Both Sides
Whilst Peter Hook has been forthright and unambiguous about his unwillingness to take part in any comeback, his previous musical partners have adopted a markedly separate public posture. Bernard Sumner, Stephen Morris and Gillian Gilbert have mostly stayed quiet on the matter, neither confirming nor denying their prospects for the November induction event. This imbalance in messaging has created substantial uncertainty about how the event will take shape, with Hook’s uncompromising stand presenting a marked contrast with the relative quiet emanating from the other three members. The lack of a unified response from New Order points to either a intentional approach of restraint or a underlying disagreement about how to handle the situation publicly.
The divergence in their statements to the media demonstrates the significant divide that has developed between the parties since their split in 2007 and following legal complications. Hook’s preparedness to talk frankly about his grievances stands in marked contrast to what appears to be a tendency from his past associates to allow the situation to settle. Whether this silence represents an attempt to preserve dignity, prevent additional disputes, or merely progress ahead without rehashing old grievances stays uncertain. What is certain is that the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame admission will take place against a context of essentially conflicting stories 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 Case and Fading Hope
The shadow of Oasis looms large over discussions of potential rock reunions, yet Hook’s situation differs markedly from Liam and Noel Gallagher’s recent rapprochement. Whilst the Gallagher brothers eventually found their way back to a collaborative arrangement after almost thirty years of acrimony, Hook seems considerably reluctant toward such an outcome. The Oasis reunion demonstrated that even the most contentious band relationships could be mended, notably when monetary rewards and public sentiment coincided. However, Hook’s ethical position indicates that financial gain and nostalgia alone cannot bridge the rift created by what he regards as a core betrayal in the 2011 reformation.
Hook’s conditional language—implying a reunion could happen solely should Sumner offered a heartfelt apology—points to a faint chance, though his sardonic tone suggests he holds little genuine expectation of such an gesture. The bass player has devoted considerable time processing the psychological and monetary consequences from the court battle, and that accumulated grievance seems to have hardened into something more resistant to the type of financial incentives that could otherwise force a reconciliation. Unlike Oasis, where each side eventually acknowledged their common heritage and reciprocal advantage, Hook appears resolved to protect his integrity above all else, even if it entails sacrificing a possibly glorious occasion at one of the most esteemed events in rock music.
- Hook highlights ethical principles ahead of financial gain in his refusal to reunite
- The 2017 court agreement resolved monetary issues but not emotional wounds
- Authentic reconciliation would require extraordinary recognition from Sumner