There are academic works on any issue that are paper-dry and "academic" in the worst sense of the term, strangers to life or literature. There are also idiosyncratic interpretations led by self-righteous hot-heads that maybe inspired but will leave most of the other people quite empty-handed - and there are emotional & individualistic viewpoints that serve mainly as spiritual masturbation for the one who writes them...
But many academic texts are also profound, thought for, learned, inspiring and uplifting with all the supporting "evidence" and learning behind it, not to say that they can rally make a difference. There are also some more or less home-spawn "exotic-theories" that can actually affect many people and make them learn to see things in new ways - and at their best, even the purely personal and emotional views can open up new worlds for others to explore and to re-adjust their minds.
So let's not say academic discussion is bad as such, or that not having footnotes is bad, or that disagreeing is bad in itself.
Disagreement is the nurturing force of enlightenment - when it is argued about and not fought over with guns or fists - or bad rhetoric...
I think it a stupid or immature attitude when I hear people saying that they hate / love either classical music, hip-hop, techno, heavy rock, punk, mainstream pop, whatever... You can do any of those astonishingly great or blatantly bad. A lousy interpretation of Vivaldi is no better than commercially driven punk-rock. Dead Kennedys, Bach and The Who can all be good, while it is clear that Justin Bieber and Francis Goya mock music and those bling-guys are a disgrace to hip-hop...
