Solos: Classic or Dud?

"I am writing because I remember you expressing certain opinions
about solos in music during one conversation years ago. I was thinking about
the subject today . . . I wanted to ask what you think about the following questions, just to bring ideas up for discussion. I don't necessarily have a firm opinion on any of this:

First, are you still opposed to solos as a general rule?

I remember that you expressed your distaste for solos because you thought it
seems like a song is being interrupted and one musician is showing himself or herself off over top of the group. Do you still have this opinion? Do you
think it's a purely aesthetic thing? Or do you think there are also social/
political/ethical issues at play here - e.g. that this type of musical
organization seems to be modeled on a hierarchical (?) type of individualism
where a person can only express himself in opposition to the group and must
make himself more prominent than others.

If so, what types of structures do you think are more appropriate/progressive?

Are you familiar with Ornette Coleman's 'harmolodic' music with Prime Time in
the 70s where he tried to set up a type of 'free funk' where everyone could
sort of solo at the same time and it would still feel coherent and even
danceable? What do you think of this?

If solos are problematic for this reason, do you also think there are problems,
for example, with traditional classical music where performers not only play
parts determined by the will of a composer but are also directed by a conductor at the front of the group?

Where does the audience come into all this? If all the performers should be
incorporated into the music in an egalitarian way, does it also follow that maybe the audience should also be incorporated (as more than observers/consumers)? If so, how do you think this can be achieved? Does physical participation in the form of dance accomplish this? Should the audience be incorporated into the creation of the music itself?

Is there a similar problem with pop music where the singer's voice dominates
the music, where the musicians function primarily as accompaniment for the
singer?

Does it make a difference what the soloist is playing? Is there a difference
in this regard between a one-note-drowned-in-feedback Neil Young solo and a virtuosic, melodic, climax-oriented solo by, say, Pat Metheny or John
McLaughlin (or in a rock context, I dunno, Alex Lifeson or maybe Jimmy Page on "Stairway to Heaven")?

From my thesis journal notes for today:

I started thinking about ideas for a piece for . . . (who had
asked me Friday night to write a piece for him). He seemed interested to do a
‘concerto’-type piece, with solo soprano sax against a string quartet or cello
trio. I was thinking about it today. I don’t know if I’m comfortable with
that idea, maybe because it goes against what I’m used to writing but maybe
also because I don’t know if I’m comfortable with the construction of
individuality that it appears to represent. It seems to suggest a sort of
hierarchy, with one performer asserting himself or herself over the group. As
well, it seems to perhaps be more aesthetically interesting to incorporate the
other musicians into the fabric of the piece. This does not necessarily
require performers to play fully notated and controlled parts (under the
‘authority’ of the composer). As Ornette Coleman’s harmolodic music
demonstrates, it is possible to have all performers improvise as part of a
coherent whole. Ringing was also an effort to approach music in this way.
This all reminds me of a conversation I had with (childhood friend and [band name] guitarist) [his name] about solos in rock music. He said
that he hates solos for just this reason – that they sound like a song is being
interrupted for one performer to display himself or herself. “Why can’t you
work the other instruments into it?” he asked. "