>>150959244 (OP)
It was a different time. They were likely trying to do something "futuristic" which was kind of strange and alien. This was the 90s, so a lot of the synth stuff we associate with futuristic films now sounded dated at that time since it was heavily associated with the 80s.
Synths were also SUPER expensive. We have the luxury of using plugins these days plus a whole lot of knockoff synths so you can create an extremely impressive sound with limited means, but in the 90s, you would have had to actually buy a Juno 106 or a Prophet 5 which would have been recorded to DAT. Even then, it's pretty clear the composer had a wavetable synth which would have been pretty top of the line gear in those days. That's how they get those synth sounds that feel like they're making vowel noises (aoooeeeee beeeoiii baaaaaoooow).
MIDI instrument capabilities were also limited. You'll notice most cartoons in general had shittier sounding music unless they had the budget to record a live ensemble. Sampling technology has come A LONG way since the 90s, but back then if you wanted the sound of orchestral instruments, you'd get those cheap tinny saamples or, more like, FM Synth patches made to approximate some of those sounds.
>>150959359
Tech was much more limited. There were synth patches that were designed to sound like choirs or brass or strings, but they didn't really sound like the real thing. The shittiness was part of the aesthetic, but some musicians would further process those sounds so instead of making them sound like a crappy version of an acoustic instrument, they became something else entirely.
