Blog Gigs Facts Music Shop Links
Blog: TABLE 11: Names
< previous | next > |
Name Number 1 Paul (21) 2= John (14) 2= Mark (14) 4 Andrew (13) 5 Chris (11) 6= David (10) 6= Steve (10) 8= Dave (9) 8= Tom (9) 10= Matthew (7) 10= James (7) 10= Stephen (7) 10= Rob (7) 14= Tim (6) 14= Simon (6) 16= Lee (5) 16= Graham (5) 16= Sam (5) 16= Stuart (5)
Yes, they are all BUTCH and MANLY names - we don't get any lady's names until we get down to the early thirties of the chart with three Janes, then two each of Julia, Sara, Rachel and Louise.
We did a similar exercise to this at my work a little while ago. We're surveying three year olds, and MY WORD but they don't half have a different set of names! In fact, the only name in the list above that appears in the top 20 of male names for 3 year olds is "James", with "Matthew" just outside the top 30. It's even more pronounced for female names, with Rachel being the first to appear, just outside the top 50.
It's a rum old do isn't it? I guess our grandparents felt the same when MY generation was named and suddenly there was a DIRTH of Harold, Alberts, Gladys and Ethels, but before then it's always appeared to me that names stayed pretty much the same - the same first names pop up in Dickens and Shakespeare, hundreds of years apart, for instance.
I have absolutely no idea why this all is, therefore i shall HAVE A GUESS and say it's something to do with post-WAR stuff and people wanting to give kids new names for a new WORLD, and then that idea catching on for the sixties. This, however, could be a load of old nonsense.
It's also just struck me that, bearing in mind that the average age of somebody on the mailing list is probably around the same as my age, naming your kids after pop stars didn't start with Kylie, and in this battle at least, Macca was victorious!
posted 15/2/2006 by MJ Hibbett
< previous | next > |
Comments:
An Artists Against Success Presentation