Bunnie XO continues to be Jelly Roll’s muse!

The Dumb Blonde podcast host took to TikTok to share a snippet of one of her husband’s unreleased love songs. “He wrote me a new song,” she captioned the video, which features scenes of the couple having fun and spending time together. “Woman, without you on my lips/ I’d just be a man doing things I know I should quit,” Jelly is heard singing in the clip, which you can watch here.

The couple first met back in 2015, when Bunnie watched Jelly Roll perform at Sin City’s Country Saloon in Las Vegas. They tied the knot a year later, in August 2016.

While it’s not yet confirmed, the unreleased track will seemingly appear on Jelly Roll’s upcoming album, Beautifully Broken, out on October 11. He previously released Whitsitt Chapel in June 2023. The album peaked at No. 3 on the all-genre Billboard 200, reached No. 2 on Top Country Albums and took the No. 1 spot on Top Rock Albums. The star also nabbed 2024 Grammy nominations best new artist and best country duo/group performance for “Save Me,” his collaboration with Lainey Wilson, which peaked at No. 19 on the Billboard Hot 100.

The net profits from every pre-order of Beautifully Broken made via his website will go to organizations who are helping those who are facing challenges with mental health and addiction struggles. The four organizations who will benefit are Wounded Warriors Project, Folds of Honor, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, and Shatterproof.

Andrew Batey is best known to the music industry as the founder of streaming fraud prevention company Beatdapp. But for the last six years, Batey has been simultaneously building up a venture capital firm called Side Door Ventures. “I always wanted to just be viewed as a founder, but Beatdapp is probably my last company,” says Batey, a serial entrepreneur, who has also built companies in the restaurant and digital marketing industries. “I started thinking about where I want to transition to eventually, and I believe it’s investing.”

For the last 15 years, Batey says he’s mentored hundreds of companies at different accelerators, which is where he got the itch to start stepping into the investor role. After years of angel investing to check his aptitude, he realized, “I feel like I’m really good at picking the right companies.”

Side Door quietly launched in 2018 and comprises 14 different smaller funds covering a wide array of disciplines — space travel, blockchain, manufacturing and more. Investors are also interested in music and entertainment, too, though Batey says it needs to be something he believes he can grow “by 100x” and “there are not that many” entertainment startups that fit that bill. To date, he’s made investments in companies like SpaceX, Pipe, Plaid, Varda and EtherFi, as well as music-related startups like JKBX and the now-defunct superfans app Renaissance, which he felt particularly passionate about.

In total, Batey says Side Door has averaged 61% gross internal rate of return across all funds since its launch and has over 100 companies in its portfolio.

Now that Beatdapp has established itself as an industry leader with partnerships with Universal Music Group, the Mechanical Licensing Collective, Beatport, SoundExchange and more, Batey is ready to talk about Side Door Ventures for the first time.

Why are you making your press debut, six years into Side Door Ventures?

To talk about it too early seemed like a giant, “Look at me! Look at me!” And that’s not really what a founder needs — a founder needs help. I’ve always just felt comfortable being the neck that moves the head, but I’ve lost my ability to be stealthily leading this, the more checks we’ve written.

In the beginning, a lot of startups just thought I was a founder. As soon as we had that founder-to-founder rapport, the person would just start sharing all these things that he wouldn’t have shared with an investor. But none of them were deal breakers. I found the transparency actually really great. There was a strength in meeting a founder at their level, without them knowing you’re the investor.

I named the fund Side Door Ventures because they never saw it coming when I would meet with the founder. They just thought I was mentoring them, and then I would suddenly be like, “I’d like to write a half million dollar check.”

It really favored us well because I wasn’t convincing them why they needed our money. I gave them advice and mentorship first, and then told them I wanted to write the check and that’s the exact thing they want. Many want someone that’s going to be helpful, and not someone just writing a check. In really tight funding rounds where people get pushed out, we often got into them early on when we should never have been.

But the cat’s out of the bag, and I’m ready to just own it.

What makes Side Door Ventures different from others in the field?

Fundamentally, the way we’ve been billed as a fund is entirely different than everyone else. We intentionally started with small funds that are $10 million to $30 million each. We have 14 funds overall.

When I started the fund, I had a big family that offered to give me $100 million to get started, and they wanted to know what my strategy would be. I always felt that big funds are really hard to return. So my strategy was, Why don’t we make a bunch of smaller funds of higher return multiples that traditionally perform better?

When I started talking to fund managers, though, they thought it was crazy. They’re like, “Institutions won’t bankroll that — a pension fund wants to have a check size of at least $10 million.” If you’re building a fund to please people covering their ass, you’re not building a fund for optimal returns. And if I was building a fund for optimizing returns, and if this was my money, I would go the opposite way and make a bunch of small funds. So my customer investor is totally different than most. My customers are high net worth individuals and families who care more about the returns, and less about whether I check a box.

For every small fund we have a slightly different iteration. We have one with the state of Michigan which is just focusing on manufacturing, advanced materials and mobility — things that the state of Michigan has talent resources for. We have a web3 fund which focuses on blockchain. We have a seed fund which is focused on seed investing. We have a European fund focused on European college students, specifically. I don’t know any other funds doing it like this.

Most Billboard readers know you as the founder of Beatdapp. Given that background, do you have interest in investing in companies that are complementary to what Beatdapp does?

Because of Beatdapp, I have views on where the industry could still use a lot of help, and I probably have some unique data insights about where there’s juice to squeeze. But I view Side Door and Beatdapp as entirely separate. We don’t have any of the same investors, so I don’t take money in one entity and then bring it to the other. It’s a fully firewall situation where we have different investors, different teams, different everything.

If there is anything that I’m too privy to because of my work outside of Side Door — let’s say that I have a relationship with founders of a company — I generally sit out of the investment committee and let the rest of the committee decide so that there’s no bias going into the decision making.

I love music and entertainment. It’s a big part of my background, so I obviously want to invest in things that are in that sector. But the majority of all music companies exit for under $15 million. The reality is that music is not the best venture-backable investment, which means that there are very few companies that meet the sort of the requirements to warrant a venture capital investment from us.

We have a bunch of funds, but they’re all basically investing in things we think could [provide] 100x [returns]. So if you’re a music startup valued at $20 million, how many companies have exited that are over $2 billion? The answer is probably only a handful — like Spotify.

That means one of two things. I either have to catch you way earlier, like in your first round, or you need to be such an outlier that I believe the market will move in your direction. For example, we invested in JKBX. Why? If you think about JKBX as a trading entity and the fact that it’s more of a fintech play than it is a music play, you could see a platform getting traction. Now, will they make it or not? Only time will tell. But they have the profile to potentially be worth billions of dollars if they can build that habit formation and become another asset type.

You have mentioned before that you learned a lot from investing in a superfan company, Renaissance, which ultimately went bust. Monetizing the superfan is such a hot topic in the music business right now. What did that experience teach you about the viability of superfan-related startups?

We see 7,000-8,000 deals a year, and I cannot think of another case where I saw a consumer-facing application that was as sticky with their fans as Renaissance. They had a million downloads — all organic, no marketing. They had 47% day-90 retention, meaning 47% of all users stuck with it after 90 days, which is insanely good. I think the average user launched the app 21 times per day — that’s like Instagram level.

The problem is that I don’t think they knew how to fully monetize it. Artists didn’t want to pay for it, labels didn’t want to pay for it. There wasn’t a big enough venture-backable business there. It was more of a $10 million to $15 million business, but how do you make that a $100 million business? They were struggling to figure out what could be scaled.

If this company who had the viral, organic growth and absolutely crushed it couldn’t figure out how to get those customers to pay, and couldn’t figure out how to get artists to pay, and couldn’t figure out how to get labels to pay, then how are any of these other fan apps going to make money?

The only way I think you can build a successful “superfan” business is by owning the merch pipeline itself — basically, you need to be the one that’s vertically integrated. You need to be integrating and selling the actual goods yourself so that you can build enough margins in there to support the business. If you were just a third party marketplace for all these other goods and services — like posters and tickets and merch — I don’t think there’s enough money there. I don’t believe that’s scalable.

This summer, the major labels filed a lawsuit against two AI music startups, Suno and Udio, and in early September, it was revealed that the use of AI music was instrumental in the scam alleged in the $10 million streaming fraud lawsuit. Do you see this affecting people’s confidence in AI music startups?

It could affect consumer confidence, but I do not think it will dissuade investors. The reality is, investors aren’t afraid of breaking things. Where a lot of people are mad because the status quo is changing, a lot of investors see that as a positive — as they say, “Volatility breeds profitability.”

However, what will succeed here is whoever comes up with a business model where everyone wins and it’s convenient for consumers, and they enjoy the experience. I haven’t seen one that wins yet. I haven’t seen a business model where consumers actually like it.

Look at the Drake–Weeknd guy [anonymous TikTok user Ghostwriter and his song “Heart On My Sleeve,” which used AI to deepfake Drake and the Weeknd]. His song was listened to millions of times, but it also had a pretty equal number of listeners. What that means is people were only listening to it one time or so and then leaving. It was a novelty. It wasn’t something that people saw longterm value in. Until there’s a product that people see longterm value, it’s not going to work.

Chappell Roan is making her position as clear as possible, once and for all. In a new TikTok video posted Wednesday (Sept. 25), the “Good Luck, Babe” singer offered one final explanation for her stance on the upcoming presidential election.

In the clip, Roan says while she will be voting for Kamala Harris to become the next president of the United States, she will not endorse the vice president since she does not support some of her policies. “I’m voting for f–king Kamala,” she said in her video. “But I’m not settling for what has been offered, because that’s questionable.”

The new clip comes after a quote Roan gave to The Guardian went viral, in which she said that she didn’t “feel pressured” to endorse a candidate in the 2024 election because “there’s problems on both sides.” Many of the singer’s fans criticized her take, saying that former president Donald Trump and the Republican Party posed a much greater threat to the country than Harris or the Democrats.

While Roan addressed the lack of context in the quote in a TikTok posted on Tuesday evening (Sept. 24), she started her new video saying that she “woke up … to people skewing it even more” and made it abundantly clear why she would not endorse any candidate.

“Obviously, f–k the policies of the right — but also, f–k some of the policies on the left! That’s why I can’t endorse,” she said. “There is no way I can stand behind some of the left’s completely transphobic and completely genocidal views … F–k Trump, for f–king real, but f–k some of the s–t that has gone down in the Democratic Party that has failed people like me and you, and more so Palestine, and more so every marginalized community in the world.”

Roan also went on to explain that “endorsing and voting are not the same thing,” which is why she said that she would be casting her vote for Harris. “Actions speak louder than words,” she said. “Voting is all we have right now in this system, so I encourage it, yet again. Vote for who, in your mind, is the best option for what we have right now, because it’s all we can do. Yes, one’s obviously better than the other. But Jesus f–king Christ, I hope you don’t have to settle for what we have and put your name behind someone that you don’t fully, fully trust because of their blatant actions.”

Over the last few months, Roan has explained on multiple occasions that she does not support the Biden administration’s support and funding of Israel’s continued attacks on Gaza and the Palestinian people. During her set at Governors Ball in June, the singer said that she turned down an invite to perform at the White House for Pride Month because “we want liberty, freedom and justice for all.” In her cover story for Rolling Stone, she went on to explain that she originally planned to accept the invitation and read Palestinian poetry instead of performing as an act of protest.

Elsewhere in that interview, Roan also explained that she would be using her vote in 2024 to “protect people’s civil rights, especially the LGBTQ+ community,” while adding that she felt “lucky to be alive during an incredibly historical time period when a woman of color is a presidential nominee.”

For those hoping that the singer would even further explain her thinking on this issue, Roan made it clear in the caption of her TikTok video that this will be her last statement on the matter. “Im done talking about it. If you dont get what im saying from this, its a lost cause,” she wrote. “And im not forcing you to agree with me. This is my statement. Have a good day.”

Watch Chappell Roan’s TikTok video below:

@chappellroan

Im done talking about it. If you dont get what im saying from this, its a lost cause. And im not forcing you to agree with me. This is my statement. Have a good day

♬ original sound – chappell roan

Singing with Lady Gaga on the set of Joker: Folie à Deux was no joke for Joaquin Phoenix.

In an interview with Entertainment Weekly published Wednesday (Sept. 25), director Todd Phillips revealed that the film’s star actor was “sick every day” with nerves about pulling off his vocal numbers alongside one of the most renowned modern singers. The pressure was especially on, considering Phoenix had to dive into shooting the Joker sequel’s musical numbers as soon as nine days into production — but luckily, Gaga was able to help him through it.

“The truth is, they gave each other pointers,” Phillips told the publication. “He’d give her pointers about acting; she’s been in movies, but he’s Joaquin Phoenix. She gave him tips about music because she’s Lady Gaga. It’s what movies should be: a giant collaboration.”

The filmmaker also shared that the 13-time Grammy winner’s notes to Phoenix were “a little more specific” and along the lines of, “You’re not hitting the note there.” “There’s less room for interpretation [with singing],” Phillips added.

Even so, Gaga has said before that she and Phoenix were aiming for less polished vocals to give their characters — Harley Quinn and Joker, respectively — more authenticity. “I’m a trained singer, right? So even my breathing was different when I sang as Lee,” she told Empire in July. “When I breathe to sing on stage, I have this very controlled way to make sure that I’m on pitch and it’s sustained at the right rhythm and amount of time, but Lee would never know how to do any of that. So it’s like removing the technicality of the whole thing, removing my perceived art-form from it all and completely being inside of who she is.”

The “Rain on Me” singer — who recently announced a companion album for the film, Harlequin — has also said that Folie à Deux isn’t necessarily a musical, despite featuring multiple elaborate song-and-dance numbers led by the film’s two stars. Phillips is on the same page, and while speaking to EW, he clarified that the distinction isn’t because he’s “afraid of the term ‘musical.’”

“Most of the times I’ve ever seen a musical, I walk out feeling better than I did when I walked in,” he said. “On this movie, I’m not sure it’s the same thing. I wouldn’t want to be misleading and say you’re going to be whistling the songs from this movie on the way to your car after you see it.”

Did an upstart rival steal Britney Spears and her lucrative fragrance business from Revlon? Or is the cosmetics behemoth just upset that the star took her business elsewhere?

In a new legal filing last week, Give Back Beauty fired back at Revlon’s recent federal lawsuit, which accused the smaller company of working with four ex-Revlon execs to “sabotage” the company’s decades-old fragrance partnership with the Spears.

Revlon’s case called it a “carefully planned and executed” plot to steal the lucrative relationship. But in its response on Friday, Give Back said Revlon was selling that “false narrative” of espionage and corporate raiding simply because it was angry that it had been beaten by a competitor.

“Revlon asks the court to accept that tale as the only possible explanation for why Ms. Spears decided to reject Revlon in favor of GBB,” the company’s lawyers write. “Revlon’s motion is more accurately an anticompetitive ruse to damage a competitor because Revlon, weakened in the market by its recent bankruptcy, cannot compete fairly with GBB, and seeks to frustrate GBB’s transition of Britney Brands, at the same time, sending a warning about future competition from an international rival that poses a growing threat to Revlon’s market share.”

In 2004, at the peak of her powers, Spears signed a deal with Revlon’s Elizabeth Arden to develop branded fragrances and other cosmetics. When she released “Curious” later that year, it quickly became the top selling perfume of the year and reportedly pulled in more than $100 million in sales. By 2013, “Curious” had reportedly sold more than 500 million bottles and the overall Spears-Arden partnership, featuring many other scents, was earning $30 million a year in sales.

Revlon sued last month, claiming its own staffers had destroyed that business by jumping ship to Give Back and taking the Britney account with them. Accusing them of stealing trade secrets and breaching their contracts, the case even claimed that one exec had “acted as a double-agent” – working with Give Back while ostensibly negotiating with Britney’s team to renew her Revlon deal.

“Revlon and Elizabeth Arden were completely unaware that Revlon’s own team was actively sabotaging one of their most valuable licensing relationships,” the company’s lawyers claimed at the time.

Though the case centers on the Spears account, she is not named as a defendant nor accused of any wrongdoing; at the time, a Revlon spokesman said the company wished her “all the best.”A spokesperson for Britney did not return a request for comment on the dispute.

Earlier this month, Revlon asked for an immediate injunction that would sharply restrict Give Back and the ex-employees while the case plays out. It claimed the defendants were “continuing to misuse Revlon’s trade secrets” and that “this wrongful conduct must stop.”

With Friday’s filing, Give Back responded to that motion — arguing there was no need for any kind of restraining order over Revlon’s “baseless” accusations and that the rival can’t show it will suffer the kind of “irreparable” harm required for such a drastic order.

“The court should not countenance plaintiffs’ thinly-veiled attempt to prevent GBB from safeguarding Ms. Spears’ valuable fragrance brand,” the company’s lawyers write. “Revlon’s Motion should be denied in its entirety.”

In making that argument, Give Back sharply denied many of the lawsuit’s allegations. On the “double agent” claim, it said the ex-employee had been “unaware that GBB was negotiating a deal with Britney Brands and had no involvement in negotiating the agreement.” It also denied that the staffers had stolen any proprietary information or that Give Back had used any such data.

The real purpose of Revlon’s request for the injunction? Attorneys for the defendants says it’s “entirely vindictive” – aimed at “thwarting Ms. Spears’ decision to hire GBB” and “keeping the option for the public to buy Britney Spears-branded fragrances off of the market so long as Revlon is not the distributor.”

A spokesperson for Revlon did not immediately return a request for comment.

In addition to Give Back itself, the lawsuit names the four employees — Vanessa Kidd, Dominick Romeo, Reid Mulvihill and Ashley Fass. They are all represented by the same legal team that filed Friday’s motion.