Age old discussion I know but MM or MC? Benefits?

Hi guys - check out a website called REGON AUDIO by Robert Everest Greene who has written for THE ABSOLUTE SOUND. He gives a fascinating insight into MM carts. What is interesting, and I have found is the MC's pick up certain artefacts in a recording that when heard in a master tape are never picked up on, but due to the MC design they are. These often give a sense of air and magic that aren't in fact accurate - the MM's were in fact closer to neutral. I have a Pickering XSV4000 and I am impressed with the way it goes about its' business - it doesn't major on 'airy highs' but has an earth driving musicality that none of my 3 MC's deliver. In addition to this they don't require as much amplification as an MC. So MC's give a magic when done correctly, but MM's have their own strengths of equal value. 

Out of interest @chakster which cartridges do you call the vintage MM's?
@lewm REG may well be an MM fan - it's is essentially a perspective, my point was that it is equally valid. Tom Fletcher of Nottingham Analogue was another well known proponent of the MM. 
There are also some interesting hybrids such as the MMC as designed by Bang and Olufsen (yes of lifestyle fame now I know) but they were designed ground up with a parallel tracking arm in mind with exceptionally small and dexterous stylus tips. 

I had a very lengthy conversation with Tim Jarman of HiFi News who set up the following website:
https://beocentral.com

In the conversation I had with him at the High End Show in Windsor he said that the B and O cartridges were a brilliant design as they were conceived with a view to be put into the parallel arms found on the 4000 range of decks. As such they have a very small stylus. B and O apparently considered all parameters when designing the decks - arm/drive/cartridge as opposed to each part in isolation.
Now I am somewhat expanding this thread, but pivoted tonearms are inherently flawed as they follow an arc - so there is always a tracking error - most cartridges are designed with conventional pivoted arms in mind. Hence cartridge architecture originates from this. Parallel is the way records are cut and should be they way to go, but compliance matching appears to be an inherent problem (I am sure many will disagree). Anyway it was with this in mind that the B&O arms and cartridges were designed all of piece so to speak. 
So returning to the issue my intrigue has drawn me to getting a B&O 4002 which I am getting serviced along with the mmc20en cartridge - lets see if the theory is true...