Beethoven, Mozart, Berlioz, Liszt, Wagner etc are all innovative original and experimental artist, ahead of it's time and some cases even subversive. The have been descreibed as "avantgarde" by Prof Robert Greenberg due to this (which I disagree with). However they all kept links with the idea that they are entertainer. Their originality is innovation within the context of music as a form of entertainment. They were breaking new ground in how to please the audience. Their subversion may be disrespectful to the traditions of the past but they were still seeking a different audience.
So I don't really think originality, experimentalism, subversion really makes thing avantgarde. I perceive avantgarde as a separation between the arts and entertainment. You don't enjoy avantgarde work, you just at best appreciate it. For example the ultra-serialist wrote music that were intended to be analyse and appreciated by the score and some of them openly say what it sounds like is irrelevant and incidental to the point of their music. The point of the music is not to be enjoyed by the listener. It is art that has no aesthetic value and only appreciate from a purely intellectual or abstract point of view.
A pop avantgarde song seems like an oxymoran to me.
Regarding whip it
Barely any singing. The limited amount of singing isn't particularly tuneful. The song is repetitive riff based music. Seems to me that the song was a hit due to the risqué video clip more than anything else.