That’s an interesting and passionate debate, and it cuts to the heart of what defines a band’s identity — the name, the music, or the members who make it. Many RUSH fans today are split over the idea of Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson returning to the stage with Gary Husband and Anika Nilles under the banner of “RUSH.” Some feel the name should have been retired permanently after Neil Peart’s passing, while others welcome the continuation of the music, regardless of who’s behind the kit. But let’s take your challenge seriously: if we go back to 1974, when original drummer John Rutsey left the band, could we really argue that that was the moment RUSH should have changed their name?
In theory, it’s a fair point. Rutsey wasn’t just any drummer; he was one of the founding members, part of the high-school trio that started jamming in Toronto garages before anyone had heard of “Working Man.” He gave RUSH their initial rhythm and identity — a raw, blues-rock sound in the early days. When Rutsey left after the first album due to health issues and personal differences, it could have been seen as the end of that original version of the band. But then came Neil Peart — and with him, everything changed.
Peart didn’t just fill Rutsey’s seat; he redefined what RUSH was and what it could become. His lyrical genius, literary depth, and progressive drumming style transformed the band almost overnight from a Led Zeppelin-inspired hard rock trio into one of the most ambitious and cerebral acts in rock history. The shift between Rush (1974) and Fly by Night (1975) is so massive that it almost feels like two different bands. So, yes, one could argue that if RUSH were ever going to change their name to reflect a new identity, that would have been the logical moment.
But they didn’t — and for good reason. The spirit of RUSH wasn’t tied to a specific lineup, at least not back then. It was tied to a vision, an energy, a determination to push musical boundaries. Geddy and Alex carried that vision forward, and when Neil joined, he became part of that evolution rather than a replacement. The name “RUSH” came to represent the journey itself — the constant motion, the restless creativity, the refusal to stay still. It wasn’t about who was in the band; it was about what the band meant.
Fast-forward to 2025, and the discussion feels eerily similar, but with one key difference: Neil Peart wasn’t just a band member — he became the philosophical and rhythmic soul of RUSH. His lyrics explored everything from human freedom to existentialism, and his drumming became the heartbeat of the band. His absence leaves a void that can’t be filled, no matter how talented the replacements may be. That’s why many fans bristle at the thought of Geddy and Alex using the RUSH name again. It feels, to them, like continuing a book that already had the perfect final chapter.
Still, Geddy and Alex have earned the right to decide how their legacy evolves. They’re not just former members of RUSH — they are RUSH in many ways. If they choose to bring the music back to the stage with Anika and Gary, perhaps the name isn’t the problem. Maybe the challenge is perception. Bands have always evolved. Think about Genesis without Peter Gabriel, or AC/DC after Bon Scott. Even Pink Floyd carried on without Roger Waters. Each time, fans cried out that it “wasn’t the same,” but history shows that change doesn’t always erase legacy; sometimes it expands it.
If Geddy and Alex wanted to honor Neil while acknowledging a new chapter, they could take a page from history and use a name that nods to their past while embracing evolution. Something like “Hemispheres”, symbolizing balance, duality, and their shared creative connection. Or “Signals,” echoing one of their most forward-looking albums, suggesting communication across time and generations. Even “Clockwork,” a subtle tribute to Clockwork Angels, could capture the idea of time moving forward while honoring the machinery of RUSH’s sound.
But there’s also power in keeping the name RUSH — not as a claim to the past, but as a statement that their story continues. After all, when Neil joined, the band didn’t erase their history; they expanded it. When John Rutsey left, they didn’t say, “We can’t call ourselves RUSH anymore.” They said, “Let’s see what RUSH can become next.” That mindset is what defined their greatness.
The truth is, the essence of RUSH has never been frozen in time. It’s a spirit of progression — musically, lyrically, and emotionally. If Geddy and Alex believe that Anika and Gary can help them carry that spirit forward, maybe it’s not sacrilege to use the name. Maybe it’s the most RUSH-like thing they could possibly do.
At the same time, fans’ protectiveness is understandable. RUSH wasn’t just a band — it was a philosophy, a soundtrack to countless lives, a symbol of artistic integrity. Many feel that Neil’s passing closed that chapter forever. But perhaps honoring him means letting the music breathe again, not burying it.
So yes — if RUSH were ever going to change their name, the right time would’ve been in 1974, when Neil Peart joined and everything transformed. They didn’t then, because they understood something essential: the name wasn’t about the lineup, it was about the drive. And if that’s still alive today in Geddy and Alex, then maybe, just maybe, the name still fits.
Because RUSH has never been about standing still — it’s always been about motion. And that, in itself, is the ultimate tribute to Neil, John, and the band’s entire journey.
Leave a Reply