While I am certain Neil will never tour again, unless he receives new arms, there's no reason something appealing can't be done. Whatever they have felt in the past is subject to change just like it is for all of us. Creating a studio album without touring is possible. Other bands do it. They might not be a touring band, but I can easily see them changing their minds about whether a non-touring band is legitimate. If they put the work into a new album then they have respected their art and it certainly is legitimate. And as Alex was fine with making Victor and Geddy made MFH, why couldn't they continue to work together. Don't call it Rush, obviously, because at this point changing drummers would be horrific. People joke about an acoustic tour, but the reality is that they can work together without ruining the legacy. They've worked together since they were kids. Would it be drumless? Drum machine? new drummer but not Rush? I have no problem with any of that. If they want to work they shouldn't let Neil wanting to stop be an issue. This works both ways, if Neil doesn't want to tour they shouldn't try to make him. As fans we shouldn't feel they owe us anything beyond what they've done. They should make music if they want to, and if that happened, Rush or not, I'd be very interested. edit: As to a record deal, that could be written in so many different ways that they could have many ways to get around it. Geddy's compilation idea might be all it takes to satisfy the deal. A lot depends on the wording of the deal (assuming there is one). Sometimes the only rule is that the NEXT album has to be with their current label. Sometimes that means no more albums, without breaking any contract rules.