For nearly two decades I was a diehard LISP advocate. I even forced all my programers to code three Crash Bandicoot and four Jak & Daxter games in custom LISP dialects that I wrote the compilers for (an article on one here http://all-things-andy-gavin.com/2011/03/12/making-crash-ban...).
But by the mid 2000s I started doing the kind of programming I used to do in LISP in Ruby. It's not that Ruby is a better language, but mostly it was the momentum factor and the availability of modern libraries for interfacing with the vast array of services out there. Using the crappy unreliable or outdated LISP libraries -- if they worked at all -- was tedious. Plus the LISP implementations were so outmoded. It was very hard to get other programers (except a couple enthusiasts) to work that way.
Ruby struct a decent compromise. And it's type system and object model are better than CL anyway. The syntax is more inconsistent, and the macro model nowhere near as good. But it turns out. Libraries and implementation matter a lot. Still, you can feel lots and lots of LISP influence in all the new runtime typed languages (Ruby, Python, etc). And 30 years later, listeners still rule!
Have you investigated Quicklisp[1] using SBCL? I have found Quicklisp generally a better experience than CPAN, pip, Cabal, and the other package managers I've used.
SBCL (A fork of CMUCL) is maintained monthly and recently had a very successful crowdfunding campaign.
Of course, if you find CL itself to be weaker in areas important to you than (say) Ruby, none of the above matters. But I thought you might like to know. :-)
Anyway I bundled up some of my thoughts on this on my blog: http://all-things-andy-gavin.com/2011/10/25/lispings-ala-joh...