And nested ), ), and ) are easier to pick apart visually?
At least with }, ], and ) you know any given } matches a { and not a ( or a [. Whereas with all )'s, it's a lot harder (for me) to know which ( in a mountain of ('s it's going to match.
A good editor and proper indenting will, of course, mitigate some of the pain. But I'd MUCH rather have a mix of {'s, ['s, and ('s, than all ('s.
I have found the opposite. It's a lot easier to close with a bunch of )))s at the end of a line than to flip around with the )]}]))} line noise. I let my code's structure give me meaning. I am less concerned with matching things and more concerned with readable code arrangement. It is easier for me to read English-like words than a bunch of symbols. As a result, the ))s are almost equivalent whitespace with the exception that they provide useful and common structure.
You don't have to pick them out in CL, just balance them. Much easier (IMO).
The rest is just icing on the cake.
S-expressions define a class of syntax styles. By themselves, they have no semantic characteristics at all. Macro's are a way in which the compiler rewrites the syntax tree based on user programs. Do you see the difference?
I actually find the Clojure syntax harder to parse. Nested mixtures of }, ], and ) are very difficult to pick apart visually.