Tidal - why only remastered versions?

Some are better and some are worse. Often the remastered version or original cd has been mastered with a compressed sound with lower bass and higher mids and treble. I suppose this is partly done to get a different sound that they can say has improved (false) clarity over the original.

Recently started to acquire vinyls again just to be able to listen to old favourites as they should sound. 

The Clash - London Calling, Lowell George - Thank's I'll eat it here, Supertramp - Crime of the century. Lou Reed - Rock 'n roll animal just four great examples.

Not all old vinyls are great though. Queen first sound as bad (distorted) on vinyl as on cd. It's a lottery.

My experience from newer recordings are so far that they seem more to be a direct copy of the cd. Same mastering. Same good or bad sound.

I tried streaming with both Tidal and Qobuz. My objection
was -They very often did not have rights to the one (best) 
album I was interested in. 
From a business perspective I know these companies want to
make an impression with how many artists they offer and apparently
one way is by not obtaining the rights to the best stuff they can lower
the acquisition cost. My theory anyway.
The fact that my service was down more often than up and the forum
you are referred to when customer service is required is a multi day 
process made me decide to cancel and wait for the big boys to do hi-res.
Then sign up with a professionally run organization. Amazon???

IMHO, Tidal wants to present the latest and "greatest" music available. They have bragging rights to the largest library and most famous artists in music.
So perhaps that means remastered releases are "the best." We were all fooled by this crap the industry sold us. That is until we heard the wave of remasters competing to see who was loudest.

I was taken by the newly remastered CDs. 

Tidal takes a feed from the music companies.   This feed will contain the entire live (ie not deleted) digital catalogue.   When a remastered album is released the record label generally deletes the pre-existing version of the album.   So at the point at which a streaming service sets up and takes its initial feed from the music companies they will be supplied the latest master.  If a streaming service had already been delivered the older master they will continue to have it on their service if a new remaster is delivered.   It is then up to the streaming service whether they continue to hold this on their service. 
It is generally not possible for a streaming service to access a digital master that existed before they existed but was superseded prior to the streaming service being created.  That is because, as I said at the top, a record label will not deliver deleted products as they are not part of the live catalogue. 

With regard to @mahler123's point re classical.  Remastered classical music sounds better as the music that is remastered in the classical domain is generally older pre 1970s repertoire which can be cleaned up and improved whilst not changing the compression or dynamic range.   @mahler123 also enquirer why it could be a bad thing to be remastered: unlike classical, pop/rock music is remastered with more 'loudness', more compression and a reduced dynamic range. This is to help the music sound comparable with modern production techniques and to sound better in the noisy environment of earbuds and car stereos. Many audiophiles consider this a backward step in sound quality, hence they seek out earlier editions of the master recording.  For CDs this is often the original master tape transfer from the 1980s. 

That's great info, @duckworp. So, even though Qobuz has less titles, they give the listener more freedom of choice by having different versions available. Maybe that's the European model?
Tidal has chosen to take only the latest releases. That's why some albums disappear from the catalogue. Maybe the payout to the artists are greater with the remasters; eg, renegotiated contracts.