My take on Lisp after going (partway) through SICP, is that it's a syntax and not so much a language. The language is what you build up for the particular kinds of things you need to do. This is both the strength and weakness of Lisp, with a tight-knit competent team, everything is elegantly achievable. However on a small/understaffed team or one with high turnover, each member has to onboard onto that team's language built using Lisp.
Imagine the best and worst DSLs that you've had to use. Joining a Lisp team would be somewhere on that spectrum though I hope their homegrown/app language is far better than the average/bad DSL.
Clojure is much better in that it has many 'batteries included' and opinions on things to make different codebases less different than with other Lisps.
If it's any help, SICP is the wrong place to start for actually learning Scheme as a practical language. It's for learning about "the structure and interpretation of computer programs", which is not the same thing as "writing useful computer programs".
SICP is a great, wonderful book. But it's even better when balanced with Seibel's Practical Common Lisp. It's like the Dean Martin to SICP's Jerry Lewis.
My take on Lisps is that people overblow the DSL aspect of it. I just write functions that call other functions, as opposed to methods that call other methods.
That's a fine thing to do in Common Lisp. If you ever change your mind, it's very easy to change a function into a generic function and split off the body into one or more methods.
Imagine the best and worst DSLs that you've had to use. Joining a Lisp team would be somewhere on that spectrum though I hope their homegrown/app language is far better than the average/bad DSL.
Clojure is much better in that it has many 'batteries included' and opinions on things to make different codebases less different than with other Lisps.