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 in November, citing prolonged discord and a protracted legal battle that he says caused him significant harm. The septuagenarian bass player, who founded both legendary British acts, made his views unmistakably evident when asked if he would take the stage with Bernard Sumner, Stephen Morris and Gillian Gilbert for the recognition. “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 is still eager to attend the ceremony, his refusal to perform alongside his former colleagues promises to darken what should be a celebratory moment for two of Britain’s most impactful musical groups.
Ten Years of Quiet and Judicial Struggle
The foundations of Hook’s animosity are profound, rooted in the aftermath of Ian Curtis’s passing in 1980. When the Joy Division vocalist took his own life, the surviving band members subsequently reunited under the New Order name, with Hook serving as the band’s bassist throughout their most lucrative years. However, the relationship commenced breaking down when Hook left in 2007, thinking then that New Order was spent. His departure, he felt, would mark the ultimate termination of the outfit. Instead, his onetime partners possessed alternative ideas.
When Sumner, Morris and Gilbert reconstituted New Order in 2011 without seeking input from Hook, the bassist experienced betrayal. The action set off a protracted and expensive legal dispute over financial rights and band ownership — a battle that Hook maintains cost him six years’ worth of his wages. Though the disagreement was ultimately resolved in 2017, the financial and emotional toll has left scars that remain unhealed. Hook remains estranged from Sumner or Gilbert in 15 years, and his contact with Morris has been confined to infrequent exchanges over the preceding four or five years, offering scant opportunity for healing before November’s ceremony.
- Ian Curtis took his own life in 1980, leading to Joy Division’s dissolution
- Hook left New Order in 2007, believing the band had run its course
- The surviving members reunited without Hook in 2011, sparking court battles
- Agreement achieved in 2017, but personal relationships remain fractured
The Induction Nobody Expected to Heal
Despite his unwillingness to share the stage with his ex-band members, Hook has confirmed he will attend the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame ceremony in November. However, his presence will be a bittersweet affair, marked more by acknowledgement of the historical importance of Joy Division and New Order than by any sense of familial warmth. The bass player has been clear that his presence is driven by reasons completely distinct from his distant band members. “For numerous 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 genres.
The induction, 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 stark reminder 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 Conditions for Resolution
When pressed on the possibility of reuniting, Hook offered a scenario so full of sarcasm it was clear his genuine sentiment. He envisioned Bernard Sumner approaching him with an apology: “Hey Hooky, sorry about that eight-year legal battle that cost you six years of earnings. I’m really sorry about it. We should maybe have just had a conversation 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 real recognition of the damage caused and the monetary cost imposed, Hook appears reluctant to entertain thoughts of reconciliation.
Yet Hook hasn’t entirely closed the door on the prospect of future peace, acknowledging that people is unpredictable and feelings can shift unexpectedly. “So you can’t say for certain, dear. Life is full of surprises. I’m sure that could be a lovely one,” he said with typical wryness. The bassist drew a compelling parallel, proposing 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 Either Party
Whilst Peter Hook has been forthright and unambiguous about his unwillingness to take part in any reunion, his ex-band members have maintained a markedly separate public position. Bernard Sumner, Stephen Morris and Gillian Gilbert have largely remained silent on the matter, without confirming or denying their intentions for the induction ceremony in November. This asymmetry in communication has resulted in significant ambiguity about how the occasion will take shape, with Hook’s resistant position standing in stark contrast to the subdued tone emanating from the other three members. The absence of a coordinated response from New Order suggests either a deliberate strategy of restraint or a deep-seated disagreement about how to handle the situation publicly.
The distinction in their statements to the media illustrates the broader chasm that has developed between the parties since their 2007 separation and ensuing legal disputes. Hook’s readiness to discuss openly about his grievances 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 bid to protect reputation, prevent additional disputes, or just proceed without dwelling on past disputes is uncertain. What is certain is that the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame admission will take place against a setting of fundamentally incompatible narratives about what took place 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 spectre of Oasis looms large over discussions of prospective rock comebacks, yet Hook’s position diverges notably from Liam and Noel Gallagher’s recent rapprochement. Whilst the Gallagher brothers eventually found their way back to a functional partnership after almost thirty years of hostility, Hook seems considerably reluctant toward such an outcome. The Oasis reunion demonstrated that even the most strained band relationships could be repaired, particularly when economic incentives and audience sentiment aligned. However, Hook’s ethical position indicates that financial gain and nostalgia alone cannot bridge the rift created by what he regards as a essential betrayal in the 2011 reformation.
Hook’s conditional language—implying reconciliation might occur only if Sumner provided a heartfelt apology—hints at a glimmer of possibility, though his sardonic tone indicates he harbours minimal real hope of such an gesture. The bassist has spent years processing the emotional and financial fallout from the court battle, and that accumulated grievance seems to have hardened into something less susceptible to the sort of commercial pressures that could otherwise force a reunion. Unlike Oasis, where each side eventually acknowledged their shared legacy and mutual benefit, Hook seems determined to safeguard his principles more than anything, even if it means forgoing a possibly glorious occasion 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
- Authentic reconciliation would necessitate unprecedented acknowledgement from Sumner