> Hygienic macros and a strict phase separation are not distinctive to scheme, many languages have this now, most importantly Rust.
My understanding is that Rust's macros are only partially hygienic. They fall short of Racket's. To the best of my knowledge, Racket has the most hygienic and expressive macro system of any language today. The people behind it have put a lot of work into it over the past couple of decades, producing more than a few significant papers in the realm of PL research.
> My impression is that hygiene itself (which the scheme community tended to obsess over) is of minor practical benefit
I assume you've not written many macros that generate identifiers before. I assure you, hygiene is quite important for safely reasoning about your syntax!
> are there additional important practical benefits you see, macro-wise, over Common Lisp
Racket sports a focus on what they call "language-oriented programming". The gist of this community philosophy is that all significant software really is an API (or a layer of multiple APIs), and by treating these APIs as "languages" we can make them more ergonomic. Expressive macros enable a style of programming where you can make your API look however you want while still implementing it within whatever other language you're using. Pretty much all of my Racket projects end up with at least a few macros, though it's worth pointing out that the community also stresses that things that can be functions should be functions rather than macros.