Tidal - why only remastered versions?

The take home message is - don’t rely on tidal as an archival source. The same with the record labels. Maybe you guys should hold on to those old cds and records.

@marklindemann
Exactly right. It also explains why the early CD editions of albums command a premium price on discogs.com.

Worth noting also are the digital audiophile remasters on labels such as MOFI (MFSL) and Audio Fidelity: the record labels rarely (if ever) grant streaming rights to the licensing agreement.  Hence they will not appear on Tidal.

Compared Rod Stewart three first solo albums on vinyl (digitalised) to the Tidal versions yesterday (not labelled as remastered, but sure they are). What can I say. The original raw, powerful and dynamic, the cd transfer not bad sounding but plain boring. Rods voice enhanced, instruments lowered, dynamics compressed. Same on different reissues of these songs. We're not talking subtile differences here. Shame on you media industry.

I have a similar gripe re: Tidal. There are so many "re-recordings" of songs and they are not the same. Old doo wop songs are a prime example. As to why some titles disappear, I'd like to know the reason for that too. I complained to Tidal and wondered why some titles that I had added to my playlist disappeared after a short time. The answer I got was something about the rights expiring. Not sure I understand that, but it's frustrating to find some titles and versions of songs you like, then they're removed. I have noticed that sometimes there are different albums with the same songs on them and you can go to another album collection and re-download the song, but not always. It seems that's why you're paying them: to provide a service.
(BTW, if you're a veteran Tidal does offer a nice discount)

Isn’t remastered sound better? MQA is also a remastered format, sound much better than original.