"Fur Elise" gets my vote.

Sultan Of Swing sucks

I think I will go listen to some alternatively alternative extreme rare music which existence is even controversial, to see a new perspective.

But I would not call sultans of swing a meant to be pop song. A pop song I see as something that sells. The song became a hit, ok. But in a time of mainstream punk and disco (1979 +-) this kind of music wasnt made to be a pop song. What "pop" means is highly dynamic. In perspective of a mainstream audience I would not have called the Dire Straits and this song in 1979 "pop". This song eventually became mainstream and, yes, has been called pop afterwards.

For me a pop song needs the intention of a band to make a mainstream song, the "going with the flow" attitude like typical song structures, ideas of the mainstream pop songs of the time and the money offcourse.

It all depends of the audience that hears the music. In your perspective allmost anything must be mainstream?

Ok, so what is for you the difference between pop and other songs? Is it one factor defined as musical significance?

So if I get this straight you said it isnt the intention to go with the flow, originality that differentiates pop with other songs? I see originality very broad, also song structures etc. etc.

But one thing of your reasoning I dont understand. How can something be of musical significance if it isnt original and has not an impact on music because of its originality? I dont think that music that is unoriginal music of huge musical significancy?

Can you hold your difference between pop songs and other songs?

Maybe I define terms differently as you do