A fundamental mistake in your treatise is how you (and Wikipedia) use the terms exothermic and endothermic. These terms define the direction of heat flow between the system and its surroundings, not the direction of overall energy flow. Indeed, the IUPAC definition is explicit and defines the terms exothermic (and endothermic) solely based on the enthalpy change of the reaction, which is heat flow at constant pressure (see the IUPAC definition here). Work is combined with heat as the two major forms of energy flow. Other forms of energy flow between a system and its surroundings are as you mention: sound, light, and electricity.
So, by specific example: We do not label a reaction that emits light "exothermic", we label it fluorescent.
To the main point of your question: The mode of energy release (or uptake) by a chemical reaction is inherent to the reaction itself; one cannot change the external conditions of a chemical reaction to make that reaction release one type of energy in a completely different type of energy. So as a general example, a reaction that is solely exothermic and not electrochemical or fluorescent cannot be made to be electrochemical or fluorescent just by changing the external pressure or temperature or concentrations.
For reactions that emit more than one type of energy, one may be able to change the external conditions to change the ratio of energy. By example, an electrochemical reaction that is also exothermic may have a reaction enthalpy that depends on temperature at the same time that its Nernst energy depends on temperature (and species concentrations). In this case, you might be able to use temperature to change the ratio of electrochemical potential (voltage) of the reaction relative to the amount of heat released during the reaction.