As you've probably imagined, the reality was a lot more complicated during the lives of these composers, and they all interacted with pretty vastly different musical cultures.

They were all renowned and celebrated in their day to different extents; J. S. Bach was locally successful in Leipzig, but his son C. P. E. Bach was arguably more "famous", as a court composer to Frederick the Great, king of Prussia.

Mozart was famous as a young prodigy, and most of his success during his lifetime came from his operas. He fell out of fashion in later life and struggled to make ends meet.

Beethoven is the one who enjoyed the greatest "god-like" stature that we associate with the "Three B's" today. His symphonies and the German musical/literary culture surrounding them in the early 19th century are the ultimate source of our modern conception of "classical" music, which is really an established canon of European art music.

Beethoven's music was connected with romantic individualism and nationalism in a way that Mozart and Bach's never were; this was helped along by a burgeoning middle class in Central Europe with a hunger for public concerts, mass-printed musical criticism, and sheet music for home performances. Beethoven actually made quite a bit of money from selling sheet music, which Bach and Mozart would never have even considered. At his death, Beethoven really was world-famous, and his funeral procession drew tens of thousands of onlookers.

So, to answer your question, the answer is "not really", especially for earlier composers, since our modern estimation of them depends on the formation of a musical mass media and accepted canon in the 19th century.

To answer the other question in the thread, there were absolutely "hipster" opinions about classical music in the 19th century! The most important source of discussion and criticism at the time was Neue Zeitschrift für Musik (New Magazine for Music), founded by composer Robert Schumann in 1834. This magazine brought wider exposure to the avant-garde composers of the time, including Berlioz, Chopin, and Brahms. Schumann was pretty polemical, and went after a lot of compositions that he saw as shallow and flashy.

In a reflection on the first publication of the Zeitschrift he wrote:

The musical situation was not then very encouraging in Germany. On the stage Rossini reigned, at the pianoforte nothing was heard but Herz and Huenten.

He also spoke often in the magazine of ideals of the Davidsbund, a "League of David", which was an imaginary group of acolytes devoted to slaying "musical Philistines".

EDIT: spelling

EDIT 2: Reading through Schumann's essays, I couldn't help but share these gems of 19th century hipsterism:

When I hear so much foolish twaddle about [Rossini] as saviour and consoler, I thrill with anger to my very fingertips. We treat the public with too much delicacy; it begins already to grow obstinate, where formerly it listened modestly from a distance, glad to learn a little from the artist...[I]s it not true that Herz, the stenographer, who possesses no heart at all (note: this is a little pun on "Herz", German for "heart") save that in his fingers, makes four hundred dollars by a set of variations, while Marschner scarcely obtained more for the entire opera of "Hans Heiling"? Once more I say -- I quiver to the tips of my fingers when I think of it.

And referring to Rossini's visit to Beethoven:

The butterfly flew in the way of the eagle; he moved aside lest he might have crushed the insect with the beating of his wings.

Also. Was there any, for lack of a better word, "hipster" opinions on who you should really listen to? Was anyone mocked for their choice of Bach over Beethoven?