I'll come clean here and openly admit that I am a big fan of 'Old-School' style logo design. By 'Old School' I mean a brand logo with hard, solid geometry and well-defined areas for ink/no ink - an image capable of faithful reproduction in almost any media, with minimal adjustments to the original. Back in the day I used to say that if I can still make out the salient details of a logo after it had been faxed, then it's a 'good' logo.
I suppose these days I could substitute 'export the logo as a 50-pixel bitmap' for the fax process (for all our younger readers).
That's not to say, of course, that the 'Old-School' logo should sacrifice elegance for crudeness, quite the reverse, as the challenge is to create an elegant creative solution even if the resulting design should only appear small and in one colour.
Compare this more 'traditional' approach to the current wave of the 'web 2.0' type logos, and their like, that are prevalent today. Many of these contemporary logo styles appear to be driven by software techniques rather than sound design thinking. By way of an example: the wildfire-like spread of the 'reflection' technique that's now being applied to so many contemporary web graphics.
There's even a site that generates trendy 'web 2.0' style logos - although I should point out that this is intended to be a joke.
Fan that I am of the 'Old School' style I do realise that they may not suit all projects, but I believe them to be at least a useful benchmark. Of course I am also aware that there are some instances where a logo is intended almost solely for web/screen use and, therefore, need not adhere to any print-related reprographic issues.
As a 'straw poll' test of the longevity of these 'Old-School' hard styles of logos just quickly think of a few global brands (and I mean the really big established ones), then take a look at their logos to see what I mean.